A   POLITICAL   HISTORY  OF  THE 
STATE   OF   NEW  YORK 

1865-1869 


iok 


BY 

HOMER  A.  STEBBINS,  Ph.M.,  LL.B. 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 

FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

Faculty  of  Political  Science 
Columbia  University 


- 

/  0      Ml 

!         ur»»Vt:ri3<TY 

\  J 


NEW  YORK 
1913 


A   POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  THE 
STATE  OF  NEW  YORK 

1865-1869 


BY 

HOMER  A.  STEBBINS,  Ph.M.,  LL.B. 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 
FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

IN   THE 

Faculty  of  Political  Science 
Columbia  University 


NEW  YORK 
1913 


rt 


\9> 


Copyright,  1913 

BY 

HOMER  A.  STEBBINS 


•  •   • 
:  *  rl 


TO 

My  Mother 
REBECCA  McCABE  STEBBINS 

AND 

My  Father 
MORRIS  WILLIAM  STEBBINS 


263726 


PREFACE 


This  monograph  results  from  the  author's  interest  in 
the  politics  of  the  United  States  and  from  Professor 
William  A.  Dunning's  suggestion  that  a  study  be  made 
of  the  political  conditions  in  New  York  State  correspond- 
ing to  the  Reconstruction  period  in  the  South.  Although 
the  immediate  effects  of  the  Civil  War  had  their  direct 
manifestation  in  the  disturbed  social,  economic  and 
political  conditions  of  the  South,  with  the  resulting  Re- 
construction legislation  of  the  Radical  Congress;  it  is 
also  true  that  the  reflex  action  of  the  War  and  of  the 
Reconstruction  movements  produced  a  disorder  which, 
while  more  political  than  social  or  economic,  neverthe- 
less caused  a  general  wave  of  disturbance  to  sweep  over 
the  Northern  States.  This  wave  was  especially  notice- 
able in  the  reorganization  of  political  parties  in  the  North. 
In  no  Northern  State  was  the  reconstruction  of  political 
parties  more  marked  than  in  New  York,  and  as  it,  then 
as  now,  was  the  pivotal  State  of  the  Union  politically,  it 
is  deemed  to  be  not  only  of  interest  but  of  peculiar  im- 
portance to  understand  the  political  forces  at  work  in 
the  Empire  State  during  the  time  corresponding  to  the 
early  Reconstruction  period  of  the  South. 

In  the  development  of  this  study  it  has  been  necessary 
to  rely  almost  wholly  on  the  newspapers  of  the  period, 
as  there  is  a  dearth  of  other  published  material.  The  few 
memoirs,  biographies  and  autobiographies  which  cover 
these  years  contain  but  little  of  direct  value  for  New 
71  7 


.  : 


3  PREFACE  [8 

York  politics.  Interviews  with  former  politicians  offer 
an  untrustworthy  source  of  information,  due  to  the  falli- 
bility of  memory,  prejudice,  and  the  natural  failure  to 
tell  the  whole  truth,  if  detrimental  to  the  person  inter- 
viewed. The  papers  of  the  day  thus  become  practically 
the  sole  source. 

Eight  New  York  City  and  fourteen  up-State  papers 
have  been  carefully  studied  for  the  period.  Statements 
of  fact  have  been  compared  in  two  or  more  papers  of  op- 
posite political  faith.  Where  a  serious  divergence  has  ap- 
peared the  consensus  of  statement  of  all  the  New  York 
City  papers  has  been  ascertained.  Special  attention  has 
been  paid  to  editorial  bias ;  and  causes  for  animosities, 
local  or  general,  have  been  taken  into  consideration. 
The  attempt  has  been  made,  at  least,  to  give  a  reason- 
able interpretation  of  the  facts,  and  assign  to  Repub- 
licans and  Democrats  their  just  due. 

Relative  to  the  up-State  press  it  has  been  my  aim  to 
have  the  northern,  southern,  western,  eastern  and  cen- 
tral sections  of  the  State  represented  by  their  leading 
editors,  in  order  to  balance  New  York  City  with  the 
State  politically.  In  many  cases  it  was  found  that  the 
up-State  journals,  aside  from  local  political  currents, 
largely  reproduced  the  editorial  opinion  of  their  favorite 
New  York  City  organ.  But  in  a  refreshing  number  of 
cases,  able  and  independent  editorial  opinions  were 
found.  This  statement  is  especially  true  of  the  following 
editors :  Carroll  E.  Smith,  Syracuse  Evening  Journal; 
Charles  E.  Smith,  Albany  Evening  Journal;  Ellis  H. 
Roberts,  Utica  Morning  Herald,  (Republicans);  and  of 
William  Cassidy,  Albany  Argus;  and  William  Purcell, 
Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  (Democrats). 
I  wish  to  extend  appreciation  and  thanks  to  Dr. 
Joseph  A.  Mosher,  of  the  College  of  the  City  of  New 


9]  PREFACE  g 

York,  for  friendly  criticisms  in  reading  the  manuscript, 
and  likewise  to  my  wife,  Elizabeth  Tredwell  Stebbins, 
whose  unfailing  sympathy  during  the  progress  of  the 
study,  and  aid  in  clerical  details,  as  well  as  in  proof- 
reading, have  been  invaluable.  My  thanks,  however, 
are  chiefly  due  to  Professor  William  A.  Dunning,  who, 
in  reading  the  manuscript  and  proof,  has  given  me  the 
benefit  of  his  scholarly  grasp  of  the  Reconstruction 
period. 

Homer  A.  Stebbins. 
New  York,  April  3,  1913. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PAGS 

Introduction 23-28 

CHAPTER  II 

Social  and  Economic  Survey  of  New  York  at  the  Close  or 
the  Civil  War 

New  York  to  be  proud  of  its  war  record 29 

Advance  of  New  York 30 

Congested  conditions  in  New  York  City 31 

Sanitation 32 

Inefficiency  of  the  Board  of  Health  ....       34 

Liquor  traffic,  prostitution ....  35 

Shipping  of  New  York 36 

Agriculture  of  New  York 36 

Condition  of  the  State  Treasury 37 

The  Canal  receipts .   .  38 

Governor  Fenton  allays  unrest 39 

Steam  railroads  of  the  State 39 

The  State  Banks 40 

The  State  Census  for  1865 41 

Depew's  report 42 

Suspicions  concerning  Depew's  report 43 

CHAPTER  III 
Party  Politics  in  New  York  During  1865 

Fenton  defeats  Seymour  in  1864 44 

Johnson  and  the  Radicals 45 

State  Conventions  in  1865  sustain  Johnson's  policy 47 

New  York  State  Democratic  Convention  of  1865 48 

Change  of  policy  developed ,  48 

Comments  of  the  Times  and  the  World 49 

The  Democratic  platform  of  1865 50 

Charges  of  the  Union  State  papers 51 

11]  11 


I2  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  [I2 

PAGE 

Democrats  nominate  successful  soldiers 52 

Comments  on  General  Slocum .    .    .  52 

Party  tickets 53 

Newspapers'  comments  on  the  nominations  and  convention.    .  54 

The  State  Convention  of  the  Union  Party  of  New  York 55 

Civilians  give  way  to  the  soldier  candidates 56 

General  Barlow  receives  the  chief  nomination 57 

Consensus  of  opinion  Radical 58 

Contention  of  the  New  York  factions  for  Johnson's  favor.    .   .  59 

Explanation  of  Depew's  withdrawal .  60 

Radicals  affirm  right  of  loyal  Southerners  to  vote  on  reorganiza- 
tion of  the  State  governments 61 

The  Union  resolutions  of  1865 63 

The  Campaign 65 

Three  reasons  of  the  Evening  Post  for  inactivity  of  campaign  .   .  65 

The  Herald  supports  Raymond 66 

Personal  issues  in  the  campaign 67 

Controversy  over  Weed  and  Robinson 68 

Charges  against  Generals  Barnum  and  Barlow 69 

Defence  of  General  Barlow 70 

Charges  against  General  Slocum;  defence       71 

Democrats  plead  for  consideration  not  based  on  Seymour's  Chi- 
cago platform 72 

Seymour's  and  Seward's  addresses.    .   . 72 

Charges  against  the  legislature    ...       73 

Campaign  closes  in  a  whirlwind  of  personal  defamation 74 

Democrats'  past  record  reviewed  by  Radicals 75 

Union  ticket  wins.           yy 

New  York  City  and  up-State  editorial  comments 78 

Reasons  for  a  campaign  of  personal  defamation 79 

CHAPTER  IV 
Attitude  of  New  York  toward  Reconstruction 

National  politics.      ...       81 

Motif  in  the  politics  of  1866  ... 82 

The  Philadelphia  Convention 83 

Raymond's  address  sounds  his  political  death  knell 84 

Raymond  declines  renomination  to  Congress 86 

Swinging  round  the  circle,  Seward's  downfall 87 

Political  terminology .   .  88 

The  Preliminary  Conservative  Union  State  Convention 00 

The  Union  Republican  State  Convention  of  1866 91 

The  western  and  eastern  parts  of  the  State  in  conflict 92 


I3]  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  13 


PAGE 


Lieutenant-Governor  Alvord  dropped  for  General  Woodford.   .   .  93 

The  western  State  papers  fall  in  line 94 

Platform  a  strong  Radical  document .  95 

General  Barlow  shows  lack  of  ill-will 96 

Democrats  exultant  over  Fenton's  renomination  ....  97 

Radical  up-State  papers  united  against  Johnson 98 

The  Democratic  State  Convention  of  1866 99 

Hoffman  and  Dix  the  leading  candidates  for  Governor 100 

Tammany  spars  for  time.       .                  101 

Sandford  E.  Church  springs  a  coup  a"  Stat 102 

Weed  concedes  the  defeat  of  Dix 103 

Church  explains 104 

Pierrepont's  effrontery .    .    .  105 

Hoffman  accepts  the  nomination 106 

Democratic  organs  give  subdued  accounts  of  coup  d'&tat          .    .  107 

Platform  reaffirms  principles  of  Philadelphia  Convention  ....  109 

Dearth  of  convincing  statements  from  Democratic  press   ....  no 
Conservative   Unionists  displeased  over  condemnation  of    New 

York  City  commissions in 

Weed  gives  his  views  on  the  Albany  Convention 112 

James  Gordon  Bennett  experiences  a  change  of  heart 112 

CHAPTER  V 
The  Campaign  of  1866 

Campaign  active,  national  questions  in  forefront 115 

Hoffman  accused  of  being  the  M  Ring's"  candidate 116 

Johnson's  use  of  the  spoils  system  hurts  Unionist  cause 117 

Use  of  the  word  happen                 118 

Henry  Ward  Beecher's  letter 119 

Greeley  answers  Beecher .  120 

The  Fenian  agitation           121 

Excise  movement     123 

Hoffman  the  candidate  of  the  grog  shops.    .   .       124 

The  Anti-rent  agitation  -    .    .              125 

Southern    massacres,   Nast's   pictures,    Nasby's   letters,  and  ill 
treatment  of  Union  prisoners  in  the  South,  powerful  Radical 

arguments           126 

Conkling  strikes  keynote  of  campaign .  127 

Hoffman  tours  State  for  Democrats .  129 

Dissensions  in  Radical  ranks 130 

Syracuse  center  of  the  up-State  campaign 131 

The  September  elections 132 


I4                                 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  [14 

PAGE 

Fcnton  carries  State,  great  Democratic  majority  in  New  York 

City 133 

Local  elections  in  New  York  City 134 

Legislature  Unionist  by  great  majority. 137 

Radical  journals  deny  that  the  election  had  been  carried  under 

false  pretenses.          138 

Failure  of  the  Copperhead  and  Conservative  coalition 139 

The  New  York  City  Charter  Election 140 

Judge  Richard  Kelly  vs.  Richard  B.  Connolly 141 

Interest  in  election  slight.     Tammany  wins  easily 142 

CHAPTER  VI 
The  Senatorial  Election  of  1867 

All  eyes  centered  on  the  Republican  legislature 144 

Horace  Greeley,  Charles  J.  Folger 144 

Senator  Ira  Harris,  Roscoe  Conkling 145 

Noah  Davis,  Lyman  Tremaine,  George  William  Curtis 146 

Greeley's  general  amnesty  statement  kills  his  candidacy 147 

Odds  in  Davis'  favor 148 

Fenton's  attitude  puzzles  many           149 

Friends  of  Alvord  and  Bruce  desire  revenge  on  Fenton 150 

Nominations  made 151 

Conkling  elected 152 

The  Democratic  caucus , 153 

Conkling's  rise  meteoric.                    154 

The  World  foresees  formation  of  a  Ring  in  Republican  party      -.155 

The  Tribune  commends  Conkling 155 

Up-State  editorial  interest  in  election  not  marked   ........  157 

Conkling's  maiden  speech  in  the  Senate 158 

CHAPTER  VII 
The  Conventions  of  1867 

The  Union  Republican  State  Convention 159 

Conkling  and  Fenton  contend  for  control  of  convention   ....  159 

Rival  delegations  from  New  York  City 160 

Movement  for  complete  change  in  ticket 161 

The  Times  and  Commercial  Advertiser  condemn  convention    .   .  162 

Weed  blames  Greeley  for  unwise  course  of  convention    .   •       .   .  163 

Committee  appointed  to  investigate  23rd  St.  delegation's  claims.  164 

Irregularities  on  both  sides 164 

Roscoe  Conkling's  address .    .    .  ' 165 

Nomination 166 


I5]                                TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  15 

PACK 

Weed  condemns  convention;  comments  of  the  World  and  the 

Tribune 167 

Platform  supports  Congress,  throws  sop  to  temperance  element.  168 

Raymond  pours  oil  upon  the  waters 169 

Radical  papers  in  western  part  of  State  uniformly  approve  con- 
vention                 170 

Democratic  organs  considered  new  ticket  a  confession  of  guilt.   .  171 

State  Temperance  Convention 171 

The  Democratic  State  Convention 172 

Seymour  still  too  strong  for  Hoffman 172 

The  Herald  admires  Seymour's  speech 173 

Tammany  rewards  Mozart  Hall                                       175 

Seymour  rules,  John  McKeon  denounces  platform   .       176 

Platform  a  pledge  to  redeem  New  York  from  corruption  ...  177 

Strife  over  nominations  not  keen 178 

Weed  gives  a  cautious  approval  of  the  convention 180 

Greeley's  editorial  on  silence 181 

The  up-State  Democratic  editorials  ring  true 182 

CHAPTER  VIII 
The  Democratic  Reaction 

Radicals  attempt  to  throw  burden  of  proof 184 

Greeley  repudiates  Radical  resolution  on  excise 185 

Democrats  count  on  Radical  excesses 186 

Radicals  explain  Democratic  success  in  October  elections 187 

Raymond  and  Greeley  caution  Radicals 188 

Fernando  Wood  makes  his  plans 189 

William  M.  Evarts  sums  up  the  situation 100 

The  Sun  and  the  World  warn  Democrats 191 

Democratic  caution  aids  their  cause  ...           192 

The  Presidential  canvass  for  the  following  year 192 

Mid-campaign  finds  both  parties  in  general  apathy 193 

State  Convention  of  Brewers 194 

Merry  internecine  war  between  Conservative  and  Radical  factions 

of  Republicans .  195 

Politics  of  New  York  City  complex 196 

Nominations  in  New  York  City 197 

Venality  of  Radical  legislature  given  airing 198 

Senator  Wolcott  J.  Humphrey's  case 198 

Case  of  Auditor  Benton 199 

Counter  charges  of  Radicals  against  Tweed  Ring 200 

Conservatism  of  Radical  up-State  editors 201 


!6                                 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  [t6 

PAGE 

Question  of  the  Constitutional  Convention's  adjournment 202 

Radical  corruption  in  western  part  of  State 203 

Excise  movement 204 

Democratic  family  troubles 205 

Homer  A.  Nelson  bids  for  the  Temperance  vote 206 

Result— Democratic  landslide 207 

Greeley  blames  New  York  City  papers 209 

Radical  organs  up- State  explain 209 

Weed's  verdict   .    . 210 

The  World  admits  Republican  aid 211 

CHAPTER  IX 
The  Constitutional  Convention  of  1867 

Composition 212 

High  character  of  delegates 213 

The  Judiciary  Article 214 

Faults  in  the  present  system 214 

Court  of  Appeals  receives  most  serious  attention 215 

Debate  on  Judiciary  article 216 

Judge  Daly's  resume 218 

William  M.  Evarts'  plea  for  the  principle  of  good  behavior  .   .   .  220 

Defeat  of  amendment  for  tenure  during  good  behavior 222 

Age  of  Judges 224 

Commission  of  Appeals 225 

The  Supreme  Court,  majority  plan 225 

The  minority  plan 226 

Other  proposals 227 

Convention  changes  majority  plan  to  election  by  districts.    .       .  227 

Summary  in  regard  to  the  Supreme  Court .  228 

Minor  courts .   .  229 

Surrogates'  Courts 230 

Judiciary  Article  approved  by  people  in  1869 .       .  232 

Suffrage 233 

Existing  standard  .   . 234 

Committee  favors  change  in  the  time  of  residence  requirement  235 

Educational  qualifications  refused 236 

Woman  suffrage 236 

Negro  suffrage 237 

The  Bill  of  Rights 238 

The  petit  juries  . 238 

The  Legislature 239 

New  organization  of  senate  and  assembly  districts 240 

Report  of  committee  on  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  legislature.  241 

Convention  accepts  Court  of  Claims 241 


iy]  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  ^ 

FAGS 

The  Executive 241 

Radical  change  in  veto  power  proposed 243 

Miscellaneous 243 

Consideration  of  canal  questions .'44 

No  important  changes  educationally 245 

Report  of  committee  on  official  corruption .  246 

State  charities  receive  exhaustive  attention 247 

Recommendations  of  the  committee  on  submission                        .  248 

Resume ...           248 

Submission 254 

Questions  regarding  submission 255 

People  reject  the  proposed  constitution,  except  judiciary  article  .  256 

Political  aspects  of  the  convention 256 

Great  political  power  brought  to  bear  upon  convention  ....  256 

Unpopularity  of  the  proposed  constitution  ....       258 

Greeley's  attitude  hurt  the  convention 259 

Accusations  of  Democrats  over  adjournment 260 

The  Herald  uncompromising  in  its  criticism 261 

Action  of  the  Union  Republican  party  on  negro  suffrage  a  severe 

handicap 262 

The  Nation  gives  two  causes  for  failure  of  convention 263 

Up-State  Radical  papers  minimize  the  Democratic  attacks   .    .  264 

Revised  constitution  center  of  attack  in  campaign  of  1869  ...  265 

Summary 266 

CHAPTER  X 
The  Alliance  of  Wall  Street  and  the  Legislature 

Introduction 267 

Erie  raid  of  1865.  .  269 

Drew's  harvest 270 

An  interlude 272 

Vanderbilt  reopens  hostilities .    .  272 

The  crisis 273 

March  10,  1868 .       .  274 

Fisk  seizes  shares 276 

Injunction  of  universal  application 277 

New  York  legislature  takes  cognizance  of  the  Erie  War    .  .    .  279 

Legislative  committee  investigates .  280 

Two  reports  submitted \   . .  281 

Senator  Mattoon's  secret  visits 282 

Bill  to  legalize  recent  issue  of  Erie  stock.    .' 283 

Gould  goes  to  Albany 284 

Gould's  arrest 284 


x8  table  of  contents  [!8 

PAGE 

Mr.  Glenn  charges  that  Erie  Bill  was  bought.   .  ■ 286 

Glenn  demands  that  Mr.  Frear  be  relieved  from  committee..  .    .  287 

Testimony  of  Glenn .    .  288 

Mark  M.  Lewis  testifies.                                 289 

Evidence  of  Assemblymen  Ray  and  Ranney  .    .       290 

Committee  finds  the  charges  against  Frear  unjustified.          ...  291 

Legislature  whitewashed 292 

Vanderbilt  withdraws 293 

Peace  negotiated ' 294 

The  Settlement 295 

Gould  and  Fisk  forced  to  acquiesce  in  settlement  ........  295 

Fruits  of  the  harvest 296 

Justice  Barnard  fines  directors  for  contempt 297 

Aim  of  chapter 298 

Senator  Hale's  Committee.  .    .           298 

Mr.  Thompson's  testimony .    .  299 

Luther  Caldwell  testifies 300 

Committee  makes  savage  attack  on  the  press 301 

Legislature  again  whitewashed 302 

CHAPTER  XI 
New  York  and  the  Presidential  Nominations  in  1868 

The  Republican  State  Nominating  Convention 303 

Fenton  controls  New  York  City  contest 304 

Delegates.    ...  307 

Resolutions.  ...  308 

The  Republican  National  Convention 309 

Unfavorable  auspices  for  the  convention 309 

Grant's  name  accepted  without  serious  question 310 

New  York  delegation  centers  attention  of  delegates 310 

New  York  delegation  not  a  unit 310 

New  York  forces  the  admittance  of  the  Southern  votes  .       .    .   .  311 

Lyman  Tremaine  allays  excitement 312 

Moderates  win  point  in  platform 312 

Grant  nominated 312 

Fenton  among  leaders  on  ballot  for  vice-president 313 

Fenton  loses  to  Colfax 313 

Platform  a  compromise,  advantage  with  Radicals 313 

Rapid  changes  in  sentiment  of  Republicans 314 

Henry  Raymond  open  to  conviction  on  convention 315 

Greeley  comments 315 

The  World  points  out  weaknesses .    .  316 

Grant  stronger  than  his  party 317 


I9]  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  jy 

FAGS 

Up-State  papers  follow  the  New  York  journals 318 

Outlook  does  not  appear  roseate  to  Ellis  Roberts 319 

Albany  Evening  Journal  unrestrained  in  its  enthusiasm   ....  320 

Comment  of  the  Utica  Daily  Observer 320 

The  Democratic  State  Nominating  Convention 321 

Seymour's  address 322 

Delegates. 323 

Take  Seymour's  cue 324 

Platform 324 

The  Democratic  National  Convention 325 

Merits  of  Chief  Justice  Chase's  candidacy 325 

Tilton  and  Dana  favor  Chase  ....  326 

Bennett  strongly  advocates  Chase ...  327 

Seymour's  address  of  June  25th 328 

Republican  papers  do  not  believe  Seymour 329 

Democratic  situation  grave 330 

Mention  of  Admiral  Farragut  and  Francis  P.  Blair 331 

Other  names  used  to  benefit  Chase,  Seymour  and  Pendleton   .    .  332 

New  Democratic  sentiment  ...       333 

August  Belmont  calls  the  Convention  to  order 334 

The  Herald  and  the  Sun  advocate  Chase  over  Sunday 335 

Seymour's  address  discloses  nothing  new .  337 

Sanford  E.  Church  to  be  played  against  Chase 338 

The  Herald's  contempt  for  Church.  338 

Platform  adopted  ... 339 

Seymour  declines  to  run.  341 

Convention  stampeded  for  Seymour 341 

General  Francis  P.  Blair  receives  second  place 341 

Behind  the  scenes.  342 

Bennett  inconsolable  over  his  failure  to  nominate  Chase 344 

The  logic  of  the  World 345 

Dana  pronounces  Seymour  a  fair  representative  of  Democracy.  .  545 

Greeley  outdoes  himself 347 

Democratic  State  journals  unite  over  candidate  and  platform   .    .  349 

CHAPTER  XII 
The  State  Conventions  of  New  York  in  1868 

The  Republican  State  Nominating  Convention 351 

Delegates  come  uninstructed  for  most  part 351 

The  New  York  feud         352 

General  John  Cochrane  made  permanent  president 353 

Greeley  led  into  ambuscade 354 


20  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  [20 

PAGE 

Platform  echo  of  Chicago  platform : 356 

Editorial  opinion  stereotyped. 357 

Greeley  hides  his  wound 357 

The  Evening  Post  gives  qualified  assent  on  Griswold 358 

The  Commercial  Advertiser  strong  for  Griswold 358 

The  World  takes  but  slight  notice  of  convention 359 

The  Democratic  State  Nominating  Convention.   .   . 360 

Vermont  elections  dampen  ardor  of  delegates 360 

Hoffman  vs.  Murphy             361 

Robert  Earl  permanent  president 362 

Murphy  withdraws  in  favor  of  Tammany 362 

Judge  Morris  breaks  Tammany's  slate 363 

Explanation  of  the  Kings  County  vs.  Tammany  incident  ....  364 

Platform  a  comment  on  Democratic  National  Platform  .       -   •  366 

Electoral  ticket             367 

The  Commercial  Advertiser  and  the  World  pay  Murphy  tribute  368 

The  Suns  pleasantries 369 

Hoffman  Democrats'  strongest  man 370 


CHAPTER  XIII 
The  Presidential  Campaign  of  1868 

Campaign  does  not  open  with  eclat 371 

Republicans  base  claims  for  victory  on  Grant's  popularity  .       ...  372 

Usual  exchange  of  civilities  372 

Keynote  of  campaign 373 

Griswold's  connection  with  the  Monitor 374 

Hoffman's  opening  address 376 

Financial  rebuttal  of  the  Times 376 

Maine  elections  indicate  result 377 

Republicans  redouble  activities  in  State 378 

Special  appeals  to  Irish  and  German  elements  by  Republicans.    .    .  378 

October  elections  lead  the  World  to  demand  change  in  ticket  .    .   .  381 

No  one  found  to  take  Seymour's  and  Blair's  places  ......       .   .  382 

Blair  invades  East  to  defend  himself 383 

Democratic  State  Committee's  address.       .       ...  384 

Greeley's  final  broadside. 385 

Conkling  returns  from  West,  begins  active  campaign 386 

Albany  Evening  Journal  sums  up  issues 388 

Roberts  very  conservative 388 

Seward's  address  at  Auburn 390 

Presentment  of  gigantic  frauds  on  eve  of  election 391 


2i ]  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


21 


CHAPTER  XIV 
Tweed  Carries  the  State  by  Fraud 

Seymour  and  Hoffman  victors  in  the  State 392 

The  secret  circular 393 

Charges  of  fraud  against  Tammany.  ...           394 

Congressional  committee  appointed  to  investigate 395 

Majority  report  finds  gross  frauds  in  election 396 

Evidence  of  criminal  intent  in  high  judicial  places 397 

Tammany  naturalization  committee 398 

Sheriff  O'Brien  appoints  2,000  toughs  as  deputies 399 

Minority  report  finds  frauds  exaggerated,  Republicans  guilty  .   .   .  400 

Commercial  Advertiser  blames  Republicans  for  lack  of  organization.  400 

Greeley  consoles  Seymour 402 

The  World  praises  Seymour  for  moderate  tone  of  campaign.    .    .  403 

The  New  York  City  Charter  election  of  1868 404 

A.  Oakey  Hall  and  Frederick  A.  Conkling  candidates  for  Mayor.  404 

Mozart  Hall  fails  to  agree  with  Tammany  on  O' Gorman  ....  405 

Lack  of  interest  in  Charter  Election 405 

Tammany  wins  without  effort 405 

CHAPTER  XV 

Conclusion  407-413 

Index 425-447 


CHAPTER  I 
Introduction 

In  the  rise  of  the  Federalist  Party  and  its  transforma- 
tion into  the  States  Rights  Party ;  in  the  development  of 
the  Anti-Federalist  or  JefTersonian  Republican  Party  and 
the  resultant  transformation  into  the  Democracy ;  in  the 
organization  of  the  National  Republicans  in  1824,  also, 
of  their  powerful  rival  the  Jacksonian  Democracy ;  in  the 
rise  of  the  Whigs  in  1834,  and  of  the  Republican  Party 
in  1854;  as  well  as  in  the  lesser  party  movements,  New 
York  played  a  leading  role  due  to  its  great  wealth,  popu- 
lation, and  dominant  position  socially  and  industrially. 
This  is  especially  true  of  New  York  in  the  constant  party 
disintegration,  re-organizations  and  new  alignments  dur- 
ing the  period  from  1852  to  1868.  The  factors  which 
produced  these  changes  were  generally  active  in  New 
York.  The  confusing  tangle  of  party  names  in  the 
period  immediately  at  the  close  of  the  Rebellion  gives 
evidence  of  these  changes. 

In  1865  the  Civil  War  had  been  crushed,  but  few  could 
clearly  foresee  the  political  results.  During  the  course 
of  the  War  the  administration  at  Washington  had  not 
only  to  conduct  hostilities,  but  also  to  maintain  its  status 
quo  politically  in  the  northern  States  in  order  that  it 
might  carry  the  War  to  a  successful  finish.  Lincoln  and 
his  administration  realized  the  importance  of  retaining 
the  support  of  New  York,  but  in  few  if  any  of  the 
northern  commonwealths  was  the  task  of  maintaining 
support  harder  than  in  New  York.  Only  during  a  few 
23]  33 


24  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [24 

months  following  the  attack  on  Fort  Sumter  and  for  a 
short  period  in  the  early  part  of  1862  did  New  York  pre- 
sent a  united  front  politically.  For  the  remainder  of  the 
Civil  War  period  the  politics  of  the  State  presented  a 
continuous  kaleidoscopic  succession  of  party  dissensions 
which  engendered  a  heat  seldom  exceeded. 

The  political  situation  in  New  York  State  throughout 
the  War  presented  two  chief  features : x  first,  the  fact 
that  politics  in  the  State  turned  entirely  upon  questions 
of  national  importance ;  and  second,  the  active  feud  be- 
tween the  followers  of  Thurlow  Weed,  the  founder  of  the 
Albany  Evening  Journal,  and  those  of  Horace  Greeley, 
the  editor  of  the  New  York  Tribune.  Weed,  who  was  an 
acknowledged  power  in  the  State,  was  incessantly  attacked 
by  Greeley.  The  latter's  followers  grew  into  a  powerful 
faction  in  the  State  both  prior  and  subsequent  to  the 
transformation  of  the  Republican  Party  into  the  Union 
Party.  This  factional  fight  developed  radical  and  conser- 
vative wings  in  the  Union  Party  within  the  State.  The 
Greeley,  or  radical,  wing  probably  attained  its  greatest 
power  during  the  War  at  the  Republican-Union  State 
Convention  of  1862,  which  nominated  General  James  S. 
Wadsworth  for  Governor.  But  upon  Horatio  Seymour's 
defeat  of  Greeley's  candidate,  the  conservative  wing  under 
Weed  again  seems  to  have  been  on  top  at  least  by  the 
following  spring.  It  would  appear  that  Weed,  rather 
than  Greeley,  was  largely  responsible  for  the  split  in  the 
administration  forces  during  the  Civil  War.  Certainly 
Weed's  constant  use  of  expediency  tended  to  promote 
division  and  kept  Weed  from  rising  above  the  plane  of  a 
politician. 

1  For  a  detailed  treatment  of  politics  in  New  York  State  from  1860- 
1865,  see  Brummer,  Political  History  of  New  York  State  During  the 
Period  of  the  Civil  War. 


25]  INTRODUCTION  05 

By  the  joint  action  of  the  Republican  State  Convention 
and  of  the  Peoples  State  Convention  in  producing  a 
Union  ticket  in  1861,  and  through  the  Republican-Union 
State  Convention  in  1862,  a  movement  was  developed, 
which,  by  an  absorption  of  War  Democrats,  caused  the 
Republicans  to  drop  their  name  and  to  adopt  the  more 
appropriate  term  Union,  as  a  party  title.  The  designa- 
tion Union  was  used  until  after  the  War.  As  the  major- 
ity of  Democrats  refused  to  enter  the  Union  Party,  and 
as  they  logically  began  to  act  as  obstructionists  to  the 
national  administration,  at  a  time  when  it  was  engaged 
in  a  life  and  death  struggle,  the  Democracy  of  New 
York,  although  claiming  an  intention  to  uphold  the  war 
policy,  naturally  found  itself  approaching  the  position  of 
the  Copperheads. 

It  was  of  common  belief  during  the  period  of  the  War 
that  the  unpatriotic  course  of  the  Democrats,  in  attempt- 
ing to  block  an  administration  trying  to  preserve  the 
unity  of  the  nation,  would  lead  to  their  downfall,  as  did 
a  similar  course  on  the  part  of  the  Federalists  during  the 
War  of  181 2  and  in  the  Hartford  Convention.  That  the 
Democrats  of  New  York  came  out  of  the  War  period 
without  apparent  loss  of  strength  may  be  explained 
by  the  fact  that  the  radicals  in  the  Democratic  ranks, 
such  as  Fernando  Wood,  were  largely  restrained  by 
the  more  moderate  men.  Dean  Richmond  and  Sanford 
E.  Church  were  in  favor  of  prosecuting  the  War.  Gov- 
ernor Seymour  proved  a  cautious  advisor.  Further, 
the  hostile  sentiment  stirred  up  among  the  foreigners 
in  New  York  City  over  the  draft,  which  culminated  in 
the  draft  riot  of  July,  1863,  was  a  potent  factor  in  en- 
abling the  Democrats  to  retain  their  strength  in  the 
State.  This  hostility  to  the  draft  among  the  foreign 
element  was  fanned  into  a  flame  by  the  untiring  activity 


26  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [26 

of  the  Copperheads,  and  was  utilized  by  Tammany  Hall 
at  the  close  of  the  War  to  enable  the  Democracy,  in 
spite  of  its  disloyal  course  throughout  the  War,  to  pre- 
sent a  solid  and  aggressive  front  to  the  rest  of  the  State. 

It  appears  clear  that  not  only  the  radicals  in  the 
Democratic  ranks,  but  also  the  party  leaders  and  press 
in  general  aided  in  arousing  resistance  to  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  draft.  For  this,  Democracy  paid  dearly,  as 
the  Unionists  regained  control  of  the  State  in  the  elec- 
tions of  1863  and  continued  their  control  in  the  elections 
of  the  following  year.  However,  in  1864  Lincoln  car- 
ried the  State  by  less  than  7,000  and  Reuben  E.  Fenton, 
for  Governor,  by  less  than  9,000.  These  small  majori- 
ties bring  into  strong  relief  the  dissensions  in  the  Union- 
ist ranks  and  the  entrenched  position  of  the  Democrats 
in  local  offices  in  the  southeastern  counties  of  the  State. 

In  1865  we  find  a  political  situation  in  New  York 
State  much  changed  from  that  which  existed  at  the 
opening  of  the  Rebellion.  The  furnace  fire  of  the  War 
had  fused  certain  of  the  old  party  splits.  Those  Who  ad- 
vertised themselves  as  veterans  of  third  parties  had  dis- 
appeared ;  the  division  between  the  followers  of  Douglas 
and  Breckinridge  showed  nothing  but  the  scar ;  the  terms 
"  hards  "  and  "  softs/'  relative  to  the  brands  of  Demo- 
cratic vintage,  were  no  longer  heard ;  the  Regency  was 
forced  to  contend  for  its  laurels  with  Tammany,  and 
dissensions  in  Mozart  Hall  had  given  Tammany  Hall 
opportunity  to  extend  its  control.  The  influence  of 
Fernando  Wood  had  been  greatly  diminished.  Tammany 
Hall  under  the  guidance  of  William  M.  Tweed  and 
Peter  B.  Sweeny  now  became  a  prominent  factor  in  the 
Democratic  councils  of  the  State.  Dean  Richmond 
continued  to  hold  his  ascendency  in  the  Democratic 
councils,  and  Horatio  Seymour's  influence  in  the  party 
was  on  the  increase. 


2y]  INTRODUCTION  2y 

Among  the  Unionists  in  1865  the  feud  between  the 
Weed  faction  and  the  anti-Weed,  or  Greeley,  faction  still 
flourished.  However,  with  the  close  of  the  War  and  the 
consequent  rise  of  questions  concerning  Reconstruction, 
a  new  alignment  of  issues  offered  fresh  food  to  nourish 
differences  between  these  factions.  In  the  rise  of  Fen- 
ton,  backed  by  the  radical  faction,  the  power  of  Weed 
was  broken.  Nevertheless,  Weed  was  still  a  power  to 
be  reckoned  with.  William  H.  Seward,  although  he  was 
devoting  his  entire  energies  to  a  successful  administra- 
tion of  the  Department  of  State,  was  still  looked  upon 
as  the  leader  of  the  conservative  faction  of  the  Union 
Party  in  New  York.  Weed  doubtless  still  consulted 
him,  but  Seward  perceptibly  dropped  his  active  connec- 
tion with  State  politics  at  the  close  of  the  War. 

On  the  other  hand  a  group  of  men  who  had  not  as- 
sumed great  prominence  during  the  period  of  the  Rebel- 
lion now  advanced  to  positions  of  leadership  in  the 
politics  of  the  State.  Henry  J.  Raymond,  the  editor  of 
the  New  York  Times,  entered  Congress  in  1865  and  as 
a  friend  of  Seward  and  Weed  he  was  able  to  stand 
forth  at  once  as  the  champion  of  the  administration. 
Doubtless  his  connection  with  the  New  York  Times  was 
a  coign  of  vantage.  In  1865  Governor  Fenton  and 
Roscoe  Conkling  had  not  risen  to  their  later  prominence. 
Moreover,  the  radical  wing  of  the  Union  Party  was  still 
under  the  guidance  of  Horace  Greeley.  But  the  way  was 
being  prepared  for  the  overthrow  of  Seward,  Weed  and 
Raymond,  as  supporters  of  President  Johnson's  policy, 
and  the  dominance  of  the  machine  controlled  by  Reuben 
E.  Fenton,  which  in  turn  gave  way  to  the  superior 
generalship  of  Roscoe  Conkling. 

It  is  our  special  province  to  discuss  the  political  situa- 
tion in  New  York  State  from    1865  to  1869,  or  during 


28  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [2g 

the  period  of  President  Johnson's  administration.  This 
period  corresponds  with  the  early  Reconstruction  period 
in  the  South.  Hence  it  will  be  the  aim  to  keep  the 
national  political  situation  constantly  in  view  as  a  back- 
ground for  State  activities.  However,  chief  attention 
will  be  directed  to  a  study  of  the  factors  which  in  the 
Unionist,  or  Republican  Party,1  brought  about  the  down- 
fall of  Seward,  Weed  and  Raymond ;  the  temporary  as- 
cendency of  Fenton ;  the  rise  of  Conkling ;  the  failure  of 
the  Radicals  to  apply  their  doctrines  on  negro  suffrage 
to  the  State ;  and  the  loss  of  prestige  for  the  Radicals  in 
the  legislature  resulting  from  the  disclosures  of  venality 
in  connection  with  the  Erie  War.  The  above  grouping 
of  points  to  which  attention  will  be  especially  directed 
in  the  politics  of  the  Republican  Party,  will  be  used  to 
disclose  the  attempts  of  the  Democratic  Party  to  re- 
habilitate itself,  and  to  contrast  its  steady  advance  in 
power  with  a  corresponding  weakening,  due  to  corrup- 
tion, in  the  Republican  control  of  the  State.  Although 
questions  of  national  prominence  appeared  to  hold  a 
leading  place  in  the  campaigns  of  the  period,  local  rather 
than  national  issues,  together  with  questionable  methods, 
proved  to  be  the  factors  which  enabled  the  Democrats 
to  coalesce  and  elect  John  T.  Hoffman,  as  Governor 
when  for  President,  Grant  carried  the  State.  In  view  of 
Democracy's  course  from  i860  to  1865,  **  1S  not  strange 
that  this  transitional  period,  corresponding  to  the  turbu- 
lent early  Reconstruction  period  in  the  South,  should 
present  the  best  opportunity  to  ascertain  the  causes  lead- 
ing to  the  period  of  Democratic  control  in  New  York 
that  began  with  1869. 

1  The  latter  name  was  generally  reverted  to  shortly  after  the  War. 


CHAPTER  II 

Social  and  Economic  Survey  of  New  York  at  the 
Close  of  the  Civil  War 

The  conditions  in  New  York  State  during  the  year  of 
1865  made  manifest  its  potential  strength  and  resources. 
Though  heavy  demands  had  been  laid  upon  the  State 
through  the  war,  its  prosperity  continued  uninterrupted. 
New  York,  owing  to  its  increased  prosperity,  was  singu- 
larly open  to  the  manipulations  of  unprincipled  politicians. 
The  fact  that  a  large  proportion  of  its  men  of  character 
had  been  sacrificed  in  the  war,  or  were  occupied  largely 
with  national  duties,  gave  rein  to  opportunity  for  the 
self-seekers.  It  was  during  this  period  that  the  ground 
work  was  established  for  the  iniquitous  plans  of  those 
who  made  the  New  York  City  and  State  administrations 
a  by-word. 

New  York  may  be  proud  of  its  war  record.  The 
total  number  of  men  sent  to  the  field  from  April  15,  186 1 
to  December  31,  1864  was  437,701/  The  number  furn- 
ished in  1865  until  the  end  of  the  war  brings  the  aggre- 
gate number  of  men  furnished  under  all  calls  to  464,701. 
New  York  led  all  of  the  Union  States  in  the  number  of 
men  it  sent  to  the  front.  Pennsylvania  was  its  next 
competitor  with  a  grand  total  of  366,326.*  The  State 
disbursed  in  bounties  alone,  principal  and  interest  $43,- 

1  Adjutant-General  s  Report,  1865,  p.  33. 

*  Report  of  the  Committee  on   Volunteering  of  the  County  of  New 
York,  Document  12,  vol.  i,  p.  701. 

29]  29 


3o  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [30 

27°>33747-x  New  York  City  furnished  148,676  men  for 
various  terms.8  This  number,  considering  the  fact  that 
New  York  was  a  comparatively  small  city,  is  large. 

In  1865,  New  York  City  was  advancing  rapidly  to  the 
position  it  now  occupies.  Already,  the  increase  of  the 
cosmopolitan  elements3  among  its  citizens  gave  cause 
for  serious  thought.  This  was  evinced  in  the  incorpora- 
tion of  the  "Home  Building  Company"  by  a  group  of 
wealthy  New  York  citizens,  in  an  effort  to  alleviate  the 
tenement  congestion.  The  purpose  of  the  company  was 
to  erect  modern  houses  in  Williamsburg,  near  the  ferry. 
These  were  to  be  sold  at  cost,  or  to  be  rented  at  a  simple 
interest  on  the  outlay.4  The  Nation  summed  up  the 
popular  notion  of  the  laissez-faire  attitude  which  New 
York  has  been  so  prone  to  assume,  when  it  said  : 

There  is  .  .  .  dismal  outcry  about  houses  ...  in  New  York. 
The  scarcity  is  great  and  the  ordinary  law  of  demand  and 
supply  does  not  seem  to  work.  We  are  surprised  there  has 
been  as  yet  no  outcry  raised  against  the  '  speculators  •  for 
bringing  the  price  of  houses  up. 5 

'  Messages  from  the  Governors,  vol.  viii,  p.  141.  For  a  sketch  of  the 
origin  of  the  bounty  debt,  see  Annual  Message,  1863,  note  6;  also  ibid., 
vol.  v,  pp.  454,  571,  609. 

7  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Volunteering,  op.  cit.,  p.  669. 

3  The  following  statistics  are  based  upon  the  United  States  Census  of 
i860,  which  found  the  population  of  New  York  City  at  that  date  to  be 
813,669.  Of  this  number  429,952  were  born  in  the  United  States.  The 
remainder,  383*717,  were  born  in  foreign  countries  of  forty-two  differ- 
ent nationalities.  There  were  3,272  marriages,  6,424  births,  and  25,196 
deaths  in  the  city  yearly.  The  city  taxes  amounted  to  $18,000,000. 
Public  amusements  drew  from  the  people  $2,000,000  yearly.  The  police 
required  $2,000,000  for  their  support.  The  average  number  of  immi- 
grants landing  per  month  at  Castle  Garden  was  17,000.  City  Mission 
and  Tract  Society  Reports,  1865-7,  P-  13* « 

4  The  Nation,  vol.  i-ii,  1865,  p.  163. 

5  The  Nation,  1865,  p.  34. 


3i ]  SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC  SURVEY  $1 

These  congested  conditions  in  New  York  City  were 
further  aggravated  in  1865,  by  the  presence  of  a  large 
number  of  discharged  soldiers.  New  York  City  was  a 
natural  center  of  gravity  for  them  and  their  presence 
caused  great  annoyance  to  the  citizens  and  merchants  of 
the  city.  On  Friday  August  11,  1865,  between  three 
and  four  hundred  soldiers  paraded  the  streets  of  New 
York  in  order  to  demonstrate  the  fact  that  they  needed 
employment.1  They  considered  that  the  people  had 
treated  them  unfairly.  The  Nation  pointedly  remarked, 
that 

many  of  these  gentlemen  are  a  little  over  particular  about  the 
kind  of  situation  they  will  take  and  display  an  unreasonable 
fondness  for  city  life.  Anywhere  outside  of  New  York  they 
can  find  work  in  abundance,  and  it  is  scarcely  fair  to  blame 
the  merchants  here  for  the  overcrowding  of  the  labor  market 
in  this  particular  spot  wrought  by  the  laborers  themselves.* 

Moreover,  the  sanitary3  condition  of  New  York  City 
at  this  period  was  in  dire  need  of  improvement.  A 
movement  for  reform  in  this  direction  was  instituted  in 
1865  by  the  Citizens   Committee  of  New  York.4     This 

'New  York  Times,  August  11,  1865. 

*  The  Nation,  vol.  i-ii,  1865,  p.  194. 

•A  sanitary  survey  and  census  of  New  York  City  was  completed  in 
Dec,  1864.  The  board  found  that  495,592  persons  in  111,000  families 
were  living  in  15,319  tenement  houses  and  cellars.  This  made  an  aver- 
age of  7.25  families  or  32.37  persons  to  a  house.  The  investigators 
found  further,  that  of  the  15,309  tenement  houses,  3,932,  in  which  100,- 
675  persons  were  housed,  had  absolutely  no  sewer  connections.  Daven- 
port, Population  of  New  York,  p.  4. 

4  The  necessity  for  a  thorough  sanitary  house-cleaning  was  thrust 
upon  New  York  City,  when  it  faced  danger  from  an  epidemic  of  Asiatic 
cholera  in  the  fall  of  1865.  Cases  of  the  disease  first  arrived  upon  the 
steamship  Atalanta,  November  2,  1865.  The  plague,  at  this  time,  had 
spread  from  eastern  Asia  through  western  Europe.     The  Commission- 


32  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [32 

was  the  most  systematic  and  scientific  endeavor  to  im- 
prove the  hygiene  of  the  City  ever  attempted.  The 
Council  of  Hygiene,  which  was  composed  entirely  of 
physicians,  was  a  direct  attack  upon  the  City's  sanitary 
administration.1  The  total  number  of  deaths  during  the 
year  1863,2  amounting  to  25,196,3  made  a  death  rate 
greater  than  that  of  any  other  large  city  in  the  world  at 
that  time.  The  causes  of  the  various  prevalent  diseases 
were  investigated  ;  the  construction  of  tenements,  sewer- 
age, stables  etc.,  was  severely  criticised ;  and  remedies 
were  suggested. 

In  order  to  understand  the  origin  and  power  of  the 

ers  of  Quarantine  found  themselves  entirely  unprovided  with  places  to 
receive  the  patients,  or  places  to  segregate  suspects.  Their  funds  had 
been  spent  for  other  purposes.  Upon  request  of  the  board,  Governor 
Fenton  issued  a  proclamation  of  impending  pestilence.  He  advised  the 
commissioners  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  incurring  such  liabilities 
as  were  needed  to  meet  the  peril,  and  to  rely  upon  the  legislature  to 
ratify  their  action.  Before  all  needful  precautions  had  been  taken,  cases 
broke  out  in  the  city.  A  building  at  Five  Points  was  secured  as  a 
House  of  Refuge.  The  Barracks,  situated  on  the  Battery,  were  fitted 
up  for  hospital  purposes.  Arrangements  were  made  to  establish  another 
hospital  in  Harlem,  in  case  of  need.  A  central  Bureau  for  Disinfectants 
was  opened  in  Mulberry  Street.  The  streets  were  cleaned,  and  endeav- 
ors were  made  to  destroy  all  foul  odors.  Tenement  houses  were  de- 
populated and  cleaned.  These  measures  proved  effective  in  stopping 
the  plague.  The  high-water  mark  was  reached  on  August  5,  1866,  when 
twenty-nine  cases  were  reported.  Publications  of  the  Citizens'  Associ- 
ation, pamph.  18,  p.  25.  Appletoris  Annual  Cyclopedia,  1865,  p.  613. 
New  York  Evening  Post,  Nov.  4,  1865.  New  York  Herald,  August 
14,  1866. 

1  Report  of  the  Council  of  Hygiene  and  Public  Health  of  the  Citizens 
Association  of  New  York  upon  the  sanitary  condition  of  the  city.  1865. 
This  report  is  important  in  that  it  took  the  initial  step  in  the  reclama- 
tory  process  through  which  New  York  has  been  lifted  to  a  more  whole- 
some condition. 

*The  report  only  made  a  study  of  statistics  to  1863. 

1  Ibid.  (Report),  p.  40. 


33]  SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC  SURVEY  33 

"Ring"  development  in  New  York  City,  it  is  important 
to  have,  besides  the  facts  already  stated,  some  conception 
of  the  low  status  of  life  in  certain  portions  of  the  City.1 
The  party  boss  early  saw  the  political  value  of  food, 
picnics  and  entertainments,  in  his  endeavor  to  herd  the 
vote  of  these  quarters.  The  conditions  in  certain  parts 
of  New  York  City,  even  today  far  from  ideal,  were  in- 
finitely worse  in  1865.  A  party  of  investigators  pictured 
the  life  in  the  low  sections  of  the  Fourth  and  Sixth 
Wards  as  follows : 

We  first  visited  some  houses  in  Fisher's  Alley,  ...  In  these 
houses  we  found  a  family  in  each  room,  some  with  half  a 
dozen  lodgers  in  addition.  Children  swarmed  in  the  dark 
passages,  on  the  broken  stairs  and  in  the  noisome  back  yards. 
The  walls  were  cracked,  the  ceilings  leaky,  the  broken  floors 
mended  in  some  places  with  barrel  staves  nailed  over  the  holes 
and  the  windows  so  patched  and  dirty  as  to  exclude  much  of 
the  light.1 

The  owners  of  these  barracks  and  cellars  had  become 
conscious  of  danger  from  a  new  Board  of  Health  which 
had  been  appointed  ten  days  previous  to  the  publication 
of  this  report.     The  investigators  state  that 

fifteen  hundred  loads  of  filth  had  been  already  removed  from 
the  Fourth  Ward,  and  in  many  courts  and  alleys  only  a  dirty 
tide  mark  on  the  walls  remains  to  tell  of  their  recent  condi- 
tion. Some  streets  [Cedar  Street  for  instance]  were  still 
ridged  up  to  the  height  of  nearly  two  feet  for  their  entire 
length." 

^alcott  Williams,  Tammany  Hall  (In  Historic  New  York,  1899), 
vol.  ii,  pp.  33-79. 

*  The  Nation,  vol.  i-ii,  p.  332. 

%The  Nation,  vol.  i-ii,  p.  332.  The  report  continues:  "  We  next  de- 
scended into  a  number  of  lodging- cellars,  not  more  than  one  in  five  of 


34  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [34 

Is  there  much  room  for  wonder  at  the  power  of  the  ward 
boss,  when  one  considers  the  allurements  he  offered,  as 
a  momentary  relief  from  these  conditions?  "The  filthy 
condition  of  the  city  entailed  a  fearful  sacrifice  of  life," 
says  Gustavtts  Myers,  "  the  average  deaths  yearly  being 
no  less  than  thirty-three  in  one  thousand.  Nearly  all 
the  220  health  wardens  and  special  inspectors  under 
Francis  I.  A.  Boole,  the  city  inspector,  were  illiterate  and 
unfit."  "  One  of  the  above  health  wardens,  when  asked 
by  the  Senate  committee  of  investigation  the  meaning 
of  the  term  "  hygienics,"  answered  :  "  I  suppose  it  is  some 
odor  that  arises  from  the  stagnant  water."2  Speaking 
of  the  condition  of  New  York  City,  Andrew  D.  White, 
who  was  on  the  Senate  committee,  said :  "  The  facts 
which  I  brought  out  were  sufficient  to  condemn  the 
whole  existing  system  twenty  times  over."3  The  sordid 
congestion  in  New  York  City,  together  with  Tammany's 

which  was  lighted,  except  perhaps  by  a  window  in  the  upper  part  of  the 
room.  Dark,  damp,  unventilated  and  so  cramped  that  we  were  fre- 
quently unable  to  stand  upright,  these  dens  paid  a  rent  of  from  nine  to 
sixteen  dollars  a  month.  .  .  Although  we  were  always  careful  to  leave 
the  door  open  wherever  we  entered,  a  few  minutes  in  such  an  atmos- 
phere were  enough  to  produce  oppression  of  the  lungs  and  a  disagree- 
able taste  in  the  mouth.  What  must  it  be  towards  morning,  after  a 
dozen  men  and  women  have  been  sleeping  there  for  hours?  .  .  ■  Turn- 
ing into  East  Gotham  Court,  we  found  a  block  of  tenement  houses,  up- 
wards of  one  hundred  and  fifty  feet  long,  standing  at  right  angles  to  the 
street.  .  -  The  narrow  alley-way  which  gave  access  to  these  dwellings 
was  pierced,  at  regular  intervals,  with  open  gratings,  down  which  we 
looked  into  a  continuous  open  sewer,  the  common  sink  of  all.  It  was 
fortunate  for  us  that  the  keen  cold  kept  down  its  terrible  exhalations." 
^ustavus  Myers,  A  History  of  Tammany  Hall  (New  York,  1901), 
p.  248. 

1 Senate  Documents,  1865,  vol.  ii,  no.  38,  p.  467. 

*  Autobiography  of  Andrew  D.  White  (New  York,  1905),  vol.  i,  p. 
126.  Cf.  Matthew  Hale  Smith,  Sunshine  and  Shadow  in  New  York 
(Hartford,  Conn.,  1883),  passim. 


35]  SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC  SURVEY  35 

ability  to  utilize  this  condition  for  its  own  ends,  was  the 
chief  source  of  the  power  for  Tammany  Hall.  Further, 
when  one  considers  the  fact  that  New  York  City  has 
always  counterbalanced  the  remainder  of  the  State  politi- 
cally, it  appears  clear  that  this  same  condition  was  one 
of  the  chief  sources  of  power  for  the  Democratic  Party 
in  New  York  State. 

Under  the  discussion  of  party  campaigns  it  will  be 
shown  that  the  political  control  of  the  congested  dis- 
tricts in  the  cities  of  the  State  was  closely  related  to  the 
liquor  traffic.  In  each  campaign  and  especially  in  1867, 
the  influence  of  this  element  was  a  determining  factor. 
New  York  City  alone  in  1865,  it  is  estimated,  had  10,000 
places  where  intoxicating  liquors  were  sold,  with  gross 
receipts  annually  of  $5,000,000,  assuming  an  average  of 
$500  to  each  place.1  Co-equal  as  a  field  for  police  graft 
and  political  jobbery,  we  find  that  a  low  estimate  of 
the  value  of  the  real  and  personal  property  invested  for 
immoral  purposes  in  New  York  City  was  placed  at 
$5,ooo,ooo.2  Further,  it  was  estimated  that  the  amount 
of  money  spent  in  houses  of  assignation,  together  with 
the  sums  required  for  the  expenses  of  criminal  and 
humane  institutions  resulting  from  the  social  evil,  must 
total  at  not  less  than  an  additional  $5,ooo,ooo.3 

Industrially,  the  condition  of  New  York  State  in  1865 
was  strong.  It  is  true  that  between  1861-5  there  was  a 
period  of  depression  in  shipping,  due  to  the  use  of 
American  vessels   for  war   purposes,  the  occupation  of 

1  City  Mission  and  Tract  Society  Reports,  1865,  p.  132. 

xIbid.;  from  police  investigations  and  medical  testimony  it  was  calcu- 
lated that  there  were  7,500  prostitutes  and  2,500  other  women  who  fre- 
quented houses  of  ill  fame.     Hence  a  mean  total  of  10,000. 

lIbid.;  allowing- for  a  natural  prejudice,  these  reports  are  considered 
fairly  accurate. 


36  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [36 

northern  manufacturers  in  making  war  supplies  to  be 
used  at  home,  and  a  lack  of  faith  in  American  financial 
integrity  on  the  part  of  foreign  markets  induced  by  the 
stress  of  war.  The  American  shipping  of  the  Port  of 
New  York,  used  in  connection  with  the  foreign  trade, 
declined  from  1,618,258  tons  in  1861  to  774,459  tons  in 
1865. x  The  movement  in  New  York  reflected  the  larger 
movement  throughout  the  country  between  the  years 
1861  to  1865. 2  For  the  United  States  the  aggregate 
tonnage,  inclusive  of  steam  vessels,  was  5,539,813  tons  in 
1861.  This  was  reduced  in  1865  to  4,986,813  tons.3  The 
tonnage  in  use  for  foreign  trade  dropped  from  2,642,000 
tons  in  i860,  to  1,092,000  tons  in  1865.  This  equals  a 
reduction  of  sixty  per  cent.4  The  gross  annual  value  of 
exports  and  imoprts  illustrates  the  same  movement.  In 
1 861,  the  total  value  of  the  exports  from  the  United  States 
was  $410,856,818,  while  that  of  imports  was  $352,075,535. 
We  find  them  reduced  in  ,1865  to  $336,697,123  for  the 
exports  and  to  $234,339,810  for  the  imports.5  Strik- 
ingly contrasted  with  its  decline  in  shipping,  the  agri- 
culture of  New  York  flourished  throughout  the  Rebel- 

1  Appieton's  Annual  Cyclopedia,  1865,  p.  183. 

2 Ibid.,  p.  183.  A  comparative  summary  of  the  clearances  from  the 
port  of  New  York  during  the  year  1865  shows: 

No.  vessels.    Tonnage.        Seamen. 
American  vessels      .   .  990  664,096  20,453 

Foreign  vessels  ....    3,202  1,495,226  54,264 

4,192  2,159,322  74,717 

Many  vessels  arrive  from  foreign  ports  which  clear  for  a  coastwise 
port.  Hence,  the  clearances  for  foreign  ports  are  generally  fewer  than 
the  direct  arrivals. 

8 Executive  Documents,  1st  Session,  39th  Congress,  Report  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  1865,  p.  1-146,  etc. 

'/did. 

§  Chamber  of  Commerce,  N.  Y.,  Annual  Report,  1864-5,  part  ii,  p.  121. 


37]  SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC  SURVEY  37 

lion  in  spite  of  the  large  recruitment  from  the  State.1 
This  was  accounted  for  by  the  introduction  of  labor- 
saving  machinery  which  compensated  for  the  lack  of 
men.2  With  the  exception  of  an  unusual  drought  here 
and  there  through  the  summer  of  1865  tne  vear  was  ^av_ 
orable  to  crops.  Peace  immediately  gave  a  new  impulse 
to  commerce  in  all  sections  of  the  country  but  especially 
in  New  York.  With  the  growth  in  commerce  came  a 
like  expansion  in  manufactures  and  agriculture. 

The  New  York  State  Treasury  receipts  during  the  fiscal 
year  which  ended  on  September  30,  1865,  including  all 
funds  except  the  canal  fund,  were  $16,273,665.3  The 
payments  made  on  the  account  of  all  funds  except  the 
canal  fund  were  $16,183,095.98.  Hence,  there  was  a 
balance  in  the  treasury  at  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  of 
$90,569.78.  The  actual  receipts  from  all  sources  were 
$11,912,936.48;  the  actual  payments,  which  included  the 
deficiency4  from  the  previous  year,  were  $13,012,330.54. 
This  left  a  shortage  on  September  30,  1865,  of  $1,179- 
394.06.  Had  the  City  of  New  York  paid  its  taxes  before 
the  end  of  the  fiscal  year,5  to  the  amount  of  $2,667,437.04, 

1  Census  of  the  State  of  New  York,  1865,  F.  B.  Hugh.  The  total 
assessed  value  of  real  estate  in  New  York  State  in  1865  was  |i,  160,- 
848,745.  Appleton's  Ann.  Cyclopedia,  1865,  p.  3.  The  New  York  wheat 
crop  was  larger  than  that  of  1864.  In  rye,  the  State  was  second  to 
Pennsylvania  in  order  of  production.  The  barley  crop  (11,391,286 
bushels)  was  nearly  two-fifths  of  the  entire  crop  produced  in  the  United 
States.  New  York  State  led  in  hay  and  oats.  The  hop  crop  of  which 
New  York  contributed  nine-tenths  of  the  total  yield,  was  small  owing 
to  lice. 

*  Messages  from  the  Governors,  Fenton,  1865,  vol.  v,  p.  595. 

*  New  York  State  Comptroller' s  Report,  January  2,  1866,  from  which 
all  the  following  figures  are  taken. 

♦$863,814.67. 

4 The  reason  for  New  York  City's  delay  in  the  payment  of  taxes  due, 
arose  from  the  fact  that  they  were  not  collected  until  in  the  fall,  which 
was  nearly  a  year  later  than  in  the  other  counties. 


38  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [38 

there  would  have  been  a  balance  in  the  State  treasury  of 
$2,758,006.82.  Likewise,  in  place  of  an  arrearage  in  the 
general  fund,  there  would  have  been  a  surplus  of 
$1,488,042.98. 

The  funded  debt  of  the  State  was  diminished  to  the 
extent  of  $8,137,435.99  from  i860  to  1865.  The  canal 
and  general  fund  debts  were  $33,612,975.85  on  Septem- 
ber 30,  i860;  at  the  end  of  five  years,  they  were  $25,- 
475,539.86.  It  appears  obvious  that  at  this  rate  the 
State  would  have  been  entirely  free  from  debt  in  a  few 
years.  However,  the  large  bounty  loan,  made  in  1865, 
which  up  to  December  10,  1865,  amounted  to  $25,566  - 
000/  placed  the  liquidation  of  the  State's  debt  further  in 
the  future.  The  new  bounty  loan,  with  the  canal  and 
general  fund  debts,  placed  the  total  debt  of  the  State 
on  December  10,  1865,  at  $51,041,539.86. 

The  Canals  showed  receipts  from  tolls  and  other  sources 
amounting  to  $3,577,465.45.  The  disbursements  were 
$1,927,373.59,  which  left  a  surplus  reserve  of  $1,650,- 
091.86,  to  be  paid  into  the  sinking  fund.  These  receipts, 
when  compared  with  those  of  the  preceding  year,  show 
a  diminution  of  $763,800.07.  In  Comptroller  Robinson's 
report  for  December  30,  1865,  he  called  the  attention  of 
tax-payers  to  the  fact  that  while  the  canal  receipts  "  are 
rapidly  diminishing,  the  expenses  are  still  more  rapidly 
increasing."  After  citing  figures2  to  illustrate  his  point, 
he  continued  :    "  These  facts  and  figures  are  instructive 

1  New  York  State  Comptroller  5  Report,  Jan.  2,  1866. 

''Ibid.,  pp.  27-8.  "In  1863  the  receipts  were  $5,118,501.35,  and  the 
payments  for  collection  and  ordinary  repairs,  $770,882.52.  In  1865  the 
receipts  were  $3,577,465.45,  and  the  collection  and  ordinary  repairs, 
$1,927,373.59.  In  1863  the  surplus,  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
Constitution,  was  $4,347,618.83,  leaving  a  "remainder"  of  $981,376.17. 
In  1865  the  amount  was  but  $1,650,091.86,  leaving  a  deficiency  of 
$1,716,150.80,   to  be  provided   by  taxation.     In   1863  the  percentage, 


39]  SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC  SURVEY  39 

and  are  worthy  of  the  attention  of  those  who  think  that 
a  state  can  manage  the  business  of  transportation  better 
than  private  individuals,  and  who  are  proposing  to  build 
new  canals,  and  to  commence  another  enlargement  of 
some  old  ones."  r 

Governor  Fenton  attempted  to  allay  the  unrest  pro- 
duced in  certain  quarters  by  the  decrease  in  the  canal 
revenue.  He  stated  that  this  condition  may  have  been 
brought  about  through  the  anxiety  of  producers  to  get 
their  stock  to  market  while  prices  were  high.  "  Often- 
times their  interest  will  be  promoted  by  paying  a  higher 
rate  of  railroad  transit,  with  a  view  of  seeking  a  market 
which  to-day  is  buoyant,  and  to-morrow  may  be  de- 
pressed/'3 He  expressed  the  belief  that  the  canal  in- 
come would  revert  to  its  normal  condition. 

The  steam  railroads  of  the  State  for  the  year  ending 
September  30,  1865,  show  earnings  of  $48,642,966.3 
Their  disbursements,  excluding  that  spent  for  construc- 
tion, but  inclusive  of  $155,000,  carried  to  the  surplus 
fund,  were  $48,742,428.  Roads  operated  by  horse  power 
earned  $5,948,657.  The  payments  of  the  latter  roads 
amounted  to  $5,853,440,  including  $226,283  to  the  sur- 
plus fund. 

An  extensive  change  was  made  in  the  banking  system 
of  the  State.     On  March  9,  1865,  the  legislature  passed 

which  the  cost  of  maintenance  of  the  canals  bore  to  the  amount  of  tolls, 
was  but  15.33;  in  1865  it  rose  to  the  enormous  rate  of  54.73,  being  far 
greater  than  in  any  year  since  the  canals  went  into  operation.  And 
this  statement  does  not  include  the  heavy  payments  for  extraordinary 
repairs,  which  would  make  it  much  higher."  .    . 

lNew  York  State  Comptroller's  Report,  Jan.  2,  1866,  p.  29. 

1  Messages  from  the  Governors,  vol.  v,  p.  593. 

1  Appleton's  Annual  Cyclopedia,  1865,  p.  612. 


40  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [40 

an  act  "  to  enable  the  State  banks  to  transfer  their  organ- 
ization and  business  to  the  national  system  without  the 
necessity  of  formal  dissolution,  or  the  concomitant  in- 
convenience of  a  dispersion  of  their  capital  and  earnings. 

Between  March  9th  and  September  30th,  1865,  one 
hundred  and  seventy-three  banks  closed  their  business 
as  State  institutions  and  were  converted  into  national 
banks.2  In  addition  to  these,  twenty  banks  had  effected 
the  change  previous  to  the  passage  of  the  "  Enabling 
Act."  Thus,  in  the  fiscal  year  of  1865,  one  hundred  and 
eighty-three  banks  were  transferred  with  their  wealth  to 
the  national  system.3 

The  Superintendent  of  the  Banking  Department  in  his 
report  transmitted  to  the  legislature,  March  3,  1865, 
stated  that  the  condition  of  the  savings  banks  of  the 
State  was  "one  of  great  prosperity.,,4  On  the  first  of 
January,  1865,  there  was  due  to  depositors  $111,737,- 
763,5  an  increase  of  nearly  $18,000,000  over  the  previous 
year.  The  total  resources  of  the  savings  banks  were 
$119,341,393. 

1  Annual  Report  of  the  Superintendent  of  the  Banking  Department 
of  the  State  of  New  York,  December  23,  1865,  p.  2. 

2  Ibid. 

8 The  extent  of  the  change  may  be  seen  from  the  report  of  the  Super- 
intendent of  the  Banking  Department,  as  follows:  The  capital  invested 
in  banking,  under  our  State  laws,  on  September  24,  1864,  was  $107,306,- 
948;  on  September  30,  1865,  $20,436,970;  decrease  during  fiscal  year, 
$86,869,978.  Greatest  decrease  in  any  previous  year  during  the  last  ten 
years,  $1,951,199. 

*  Chamber  of  Commerce,  New  York  Slate  Annual  Report,  1864-5, 
P.  87. 

5 Ibid.,  the  interest  received  was  large,  being  $6,718,217.  This  was 
more  than  six  per  cent,  on  the  aggregate  amount  of  deposits,  and  was 
attributed  to  investments  in  governmental  securities.  The  interest  on 
these  was  payable  in  gold,  which  had  a  high  market  value  through  the 
year.  Hence,  the  interest  was  converted  into  currency  at  the  high 
premium. 


4i  ]  SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC  SURVEY  4I 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  constitu- 
tion, the  State  census  was  taken  beginning  the  first 
Monday  in  June,  1865.  The  population  of  New  York 
State  was  found  to  be  3,831,977.*  It  was  discovered  that 
instead  of  the  expected  increase,  the  population  had 
diminished  to  the  extent  of  48,958  from  the  census  of 
i860.2  The  decrease  was  still  greater  for  New  York 
City,  which  showed  a  loss  of  87,283,  from  the  census  of 
i860.  In  his  "Preliminary  Report,"3  Secretary  Chaun- 
cey  M.  Depew  said,  in  partial  explanation  of  this  phe- 
nomenon :  "  The  extraordinary  efforts  made  by  New- 
York  in  common  with  the  loyal  States,  for  the  mainten- 
ance of  the  Union,  could  not  fail  of  being  shown  in  the 
results  of  the  census.  In  every  state  where  a  census  has 
been  taken  within  the  last  year,  this  influence  is  shown, 
and  if  the  aggregates  are  less  than  anticipated,  it  is 
only  because  we  have  under-estimated  the  effect  of  the 
cause."     The  papers  of  the  State  not  in  sympathy  with 

1  Census  of  the  State  of  New  York,   1865,  p.  44. 

*Ibid. 

■  Appleton's  Ann.  Cyclopedia,  1865,  p.  615.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
the  reasons  given  by  towns  for  unusual  decrease,  as  shown  by  the 
census  of  i860. 

1.  In  65  towns  it  was  ascribed  to  emigration. 

2.  In  2>7  towns  it  was  ascribed  to  consolidation  of  farms. 

3.  In  32  towns  it  was  ascribed  directly  to  the  war. 

4.  In  25  towns  it  was  ascribed  to  imperfection  of  returns  in  i860. 

5.  In  23  towns  it  was  ascribed  to  discontinuance  of  manufactures. 

6.  In  18  towns  it  was  ascribed  to  increased  mortality. 

7.  In  18  towns  it  was  ascribed  to  removals  to  Canada  to  avoid  draft. 

8.  In  15  towns  it  was  ascribed  to  decrease  or  discontinuance  of  the 

lumber  business. 

9.  In  12  towns  it  was  ascribed  to  deaths  in  military  service. 

10.  In  11  towns  it  was  ascribed  to  completion  of  railroads. 

11.  In  11  towns  it  was  ascribed  to  removals  to  the  Pennsylvania  oil 

fields. 


42  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [42 

the  Union  party  were  loud  in  their  denunciation  of  what 
they  termed  Depew's  "  census  fraud/' ' 

The  statistics  of  the  State  census  for  1865  reveal  some 
interesting  facts.  The  native-born  citizens  formed 
67.84  per  cent  of  the  population.2  The  negroes,  who 
had  been  steadily  diminishing  for  the  previous  twenty- 
five  years,  numbered  44,708,  forming  but  0.0116  per 
cent  of  the  total  population.  The  number  of  manufac- 
turing establishments  reported  was  17,522,  with  a  capital 
of  $175,952,228,  and  a  product  of  $349,185,357.3  These 
figures,  compared  with  those  of  the  United  States  Census 
of  i860  for  New  York  State,  show  a  decrease  of  5,102 
in  the  number  of  manufacturing  establishments,  an  in- 
crease of  $3,056,576  in  the  capital  invested,  and  a  decrease 
in  the  annual  value  of  the  products  of  $29,685,582/  It 
should  be  suggested  that  the  people  of  the  State  may 
have  given  inaccurate  figures  to  the  enumerators  as  to 
the  number  and  age  of  male  children  owing  to  a  fear  of 
military  conscription.  The  complete  figures  on  manu- 
facture were  doubtless  withheld,  for  fear  of  public  con- 
tumely over  an  increase  of  wealth  at  the  government's 
expense,  or  through  fear  of  special  taxes.  Further, 
there  was  a  suspicion  abroad  as  to  the  honesty  of  the 
census  report.  The  Democratic  State  Convention  adopted 
a  resolution  which  charged  Secretary  of  State  Chauncey 
M.  Depew  and  his  assistants  with  fraud.  Whether  the 
Unionists  did  actively  conspire  to  rob  the  Democrats  of 

1  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Sept.  25,  1865. 

1  Census  for  the  State  of  New  York,  1865,  p.  121. 

5 Ibid.,  p.  479. 

^Eighth  Census  of  the  United  States,  i860,  Manufactures,  p.  419. 
In  i860  the  number  of  establishments  equaled  22,624.  In  i860  the  cap- 
ital invested  equaled  $172,895,652.  In  i860  the  annual  value  of  products 
equaled  $378,870,939. 


43]  SOCIAL  AND  ECONOMIC  SURVEY  43 

their  laurels  for  having  kept  the  State  in  a  prosperous 
condition,  we  are  unable  to  say.  At  any  rate  there  was 
a  persistent  belief  current  that  the  prosperity  of  the  State 
had  been  greater  than  the  returns  declared.  It  appears 
strange  to  me,  that  there  should  have  been  such  a  de- 
crease in  the  annual  value  of  the  manufactured  products, 
in  view  of  the  call  for  war  supplies  and  the  prosperous 
condition  of  agriculture.1 

1  For  a  resume  of  the  religious  and  allied  activities  in  New  York  State 
in  1865,  see  City  Mission  and  Tract  Society  Reports,  1866,  pp.  1-144. 
For  the  educational  situation  in  New  York  State  in  1865,  see  Fairlie, 
Centralization  in  New  York,  passim.  Laws  of  New  York,  1795,  ch. 
lxxv,  pp.  248-54;  ibid.,  1844,  ch.  cccxi,  pp.  464-5;  ibid.,  1854,  ch.  vii, 
pp.  230-232;  ibid.,  1856,  ch.  clxxix,  pp.  285-96;  ibid.,  1864,  ch.  ccccclv, 
pp.  1281-4.  New  York,  Report  of  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion, 1866.  Annual  Report  of  the  City  Superintendent  of  Schools,  New 
York  City,  1866.  City  Mission  and  Tract  Society  Reports ,  1866,  p.  132. 
Annual  Report  of  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Education, 
1865,  no.  13,  p.  8.     (Documents  of  the  Board  of  Education.) 


CHAPTER  III 

Party  Politics  in  New  York  During  1865 

Although  we  have  found  New  York  State  generally 
prosperous  at  the  close  of  the  War,  matters  politically 
were  far  from  satisfactory.  New  York  City  at  that  time 
was  in  the  grasp  of  the  notorious  Tweed  Ring,  while  the 
State  was  being  mulcted  by  a  corrupt  Canal  Ring  under 
the  Unionist  flag.1  Further,  the  fight  in  New  York  be- 
tween supporters  of  the  Union  and  Copperheads  had  left 
many  scars,  especially  as  a  result  of  the  campaign  of  the 
previous  year.  Horatio  Seymour,  the  Democratic  War 
Governor,  had  made  himself  so  obnoxious  to  the  sup- 
porters of  the  administration  that  next  to  the  election 
of  Lincoln  his  defeat  was  the  end  most  desired.  Reuben 
E.  Fenton,  of  Chautauqua,  was  the  instrument  which 
brought  about  Seymour's  downfall.2     Seymour,  who  had 

1  As  the  exposures  which  shattered  these  corrupt  rings  came  in  the 
seventies  the  matter  lies  without  the  province  of  this  monograph. 
2 The  Union  State  ticket  was: 

Governor — Reuben  E.  Fenton,  of  Chautauqua. 
Lieutenant-Governor — Thomas  G.  Alvord,  of  Onondaga. 
Canal  Commissioner — Franklin  A.  Alberger,  of  Erie. 
Inspector  of  Prisons — David  P.  Forrest,  of  Schenectady. 
Electors-at-Large— Horace  Greeley,  of  New  York. 
Preston  King,  of  Ogdensburg. 

New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  8,  1864. 
The  Democratic  ticket  was: 
Governor — Horatio  Seymour,  of  Oneida. 
Lieutenant-Governor— David  R.  Floyd-Jones,  of  Queens. 
Canal  Commissioner — Jarvis  Lord,  of  Monroe. 
Inspector  of  Prisons — David  McNeil,  of  Clinton. 
Electors-at-Large— William  E.  Kelly,  of  Dutchess. 
Washington  Hunt,  of  Niagara. 

New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  16,  1864. 
44  [44  t 


45]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  ^ 

declared  that  the  war  would  be  a  failure,  and  whose 
speech  at  the  National  Democratic  Convention  at  Chi- 
cago was  a  malignant  arraignment  of  the  administra- 
tion,1 was  discredited. 

When  it  became  known  shortly  after  the  polls  closed 
on  election  day  that  Lincoln's  victory  in  the  country  had 
been  overwhelming,  the  outcome  in  New  York  was  still 
doubtful.  However,  the  final  returns  for  the  State  gave 
Lincoln  a  majority  of  6,749  over  McClellan.2  On  the  vote 
for  Governor,  Fenton  ran  ahead  of  Lincoln's  vote  by  822. 
Mr.  Fenton  received  369,557  and  Mr.  Seymour  361,264, 
which  made  Fenton's  majority  8,293.3  1°  tne  Legislature 
the  Unionists  had  the  controlling  influence.4  Twenty 
Unionists  and  twelve  Democrats  constituted  the  New 
York  delegation  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  Ros- 
coe  Conkling,  of  Utica,  and  John  A.  Griswold,  of  Troy, 
both  men  of  prominence  in  New  York  politics  through 
this  period,  were  typical  of  the  men  sent  to  the  Thirty- 
ninth  Congress. 

This  Congress,  strongly  Radical,  was  presently  at  cross 
purposes  with  President  Johnson.  The  chief  political 
interest  of  the  early  Reconstruction  period  centered 
around  the  battle  which  was  waged  between  the  Presi- 
dent and  Congress.     The  policy  which  Johnson  pursued 

1  Public  Records  of  Horatio  Seymour,  p.  231,  Speech  Aug.  30,  1864. 
"This  administration  cannot  now  save  this  Union,  if  it  would.  It  has 
by  its  proclamations,  by  vindictive  legislation,  by  displays  of  hate  and 
passion,  placed  obstacles  in  its  own  pathway  which  it  cannot  overcome, 
and  it  has  hampered  its  own  freedom  of  action  by  unconstitutional  acts." 

7  Tribune  Almanac,  1865,  p.  48.  In  electoral  votes  for  the  whole 
country  Lincoln  had  179  and  McClellan  had  21.  The  popular  vote  in 
the  State  gave  Lincoln  368,7351  McClellan,  361,986.  Lincoln's  ma- 
jority, 6,749. 

*Ibid. 

4  Appletori s  Ann.  Cyclopedia,  1865,  p.  588.  Unionists— Senate,  21; 
Assembly,  76.     Democrats— Senate,  11;  Assembly,  52. 


46  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [46 

was  substantially  Lincoln's.  He  limited  the  right  of  suf- 
frage to  white  men,  but  favored  qualified  suffrage  for  the 
negroes.1  The  Radicals  in  Congress  were  not  satisfied 
with  Presidential  Reconstruction,  being  averse  to  any 
policy  which  excluded  the  negroes  from  participation  in 
public  affairs.  There  were  at  least  five  prominent  theo- 
ries2 in  regard  to  the  policy  which  should  be  pursued 
toward  the  South.  Nevertheless,  all  the  various  party 
groups  were  of  one  mind  in  that  some  conditions  should 
be  imposed  on  the  States  which  had  rebelled.  At  first 
Andrew  Johnson,  who  held  that  "Treason  must  be  made 
odious/'3  was  of  this  opinion.4  All  might  have  gone 
well  had  Johnson  called  an  extra  session  of  Congress  or 
maintained  his  original  policy.5  By  continuing  in  rela- 
tionship with  his  own  party,  the  conservative  elements  in 

1  Fleming,  Documentary  History  of  Reconstruction  (Cleveland,  O., 
1906),  vol.  i,  p.  177.  McPherson,  History  of  Reconstruction  (Wash- 
ington, 1875),  p.  19. 

8  Dunning,  Essays  on  the  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  (New  York, 
1904),  pp.  99-112: 

1.  The  Southern  Theory.     War  waged  against  an  insurrection  of 

individuals. 

2.  The  Presidential  Theory.     Indestructibility  of  a  State  —  suspended 

animation. 

3.  Charles  Sumner's  "  State  Suicide"  Theory. 

4.  Thaddeus  Stevens'  "Conquered  Province"  Theory. 

5.  Forfeited  Rights  Theory.     Compromise  between  the  above  sets. 

'McPherson,  op.  cit.,  p.  46. 

*Cf.  Autobiography  of  Oliver  Otis  Howard  (New  York,  1907),  vol. 
ii,  p.  227. 

5 Instead  the  President  restored  all  property  rights,  except  as  to  slaves, 
to  those  lately  in  rebellion,  provided  they  swore  to  support  the  consti- 
tution and  obey  the  Emancipation  Laws;  pardoned  those  who  had  taken 
part  in  the  war;  and  appointed  Provisional  Governors  for  the  States 
lately  in  Rebellion  except  Arkansas,  Louisiana  and  Tennessee.  Cf. 
McPherson,  pp.  9-12.  Blaine,  Twenty  Years  in  Congress  (Norwich, 
Conn.,  1884),  passim. 


47]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  ^ 

it  would  have  modified  his  own  action.1  Possibly,  had 
Johnson  yielded  to  Congress,  when  he  saw  it  impractic- 
able to  proceed,  as  did  President  Grant,  the  South  might 
have  been  saved  the  oppressive  Reconstruction  measures.2 

But,  as  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  assembled,  the  late 
rebel  States  were  largely  coming  into  the  hands  of  those 
who  had  engaged  in  the  Rebellion.  Their  legislation 
apparently  indicated  a  desire  to  keep  out  of  power  the 
loyal  men.  They  were  encouraged  in  this  policy  by  the 
obstinacy  of  Johnson's  course.  Their  attitude  took  on 
the  nature  of  defiance  and  often  resulted  in  insults  to  the 
loyal  whites  and  oppressive  acts  toward  the  freedmen.3 
These  causes,  together  with  Johnson's  habit  of  denuncia- 
tory declamation,  were  a  potent  source  for  the  animosity 
which  arose  between  Congress  and  himself.4 

A  majority  of   the  conventions   held   by  both   parties 

'Colonel  A.  K.  McClurc's  Recollections  of  a  Half  a  Century  (Salem, 
Mass.,  1002) ,  pp.  61-4. 

*  For  a  suggestive  view  of  the  Southern  attitude  in  1865  see  The  Nation, 
Nov.  23,  1865,  p.  646;  Apr.  12,  1866,  p.  460.  Garner,  Reconstruction 
in  Mississippi  (New  York,  iooi),  pp.  61-3.  Carl  Schurz's  Report, 
Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  no.  2,  39th  Congress,  1st  Sess.,  p.  3.  The  Nation,  Nov. 
23,  1865,  p.  646:  M  We  have  already  commented  upon  the  remarkable 
power  of  adaptation  and  the  great  practical  sense  displayed  by  the 
Southern  people  after  the  resistance  in  the  field  had  ceased.  .  .  .  They 
laid  down  their  arms,  denounced  all  attempts  at  guerrilla  warfare,  ac- 
knowledged that  their  slaves  were  free,  and,  in  fact,  gave  the  Govern- 
ment to  understand  that  it  had  only  to  name  the  terms  on  which  it 
would  restore  civil  government  in  order  to  have  them  formally  ac- 
ceded to." 

"Henry  Wilson,  History  of  Reconstruction  (Hartford,  1868),  p.  15. 

4McCulloch,  in  Men  and  Measures  (New  York,  1888),  pp.  373-4, 
says  that  these  speeches  were  not  induced  by  intemperance.  "For 
nearly  four  years  I  had  daily  intercourse  with  him,  frequently  at  night, 
and  I  never  saw  him  when  under  the  influence  of  liquor.  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  saying  that  whatever  may  have  been  his  faults,  intemper- 
ance was  not  among  them." 


48  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [48 

during  the  summer  of  1865  backed  Johnson's  policy.1 
However,  there  were  two  notable  exceptions  :  the  Union 
Convention 2  of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  Union  Convention 
of  Massachusetts.  The  former  was  under  the  control  of 
Thaddeus  Stevens;  the  latter  under  that  of  Charles  Sum- 
ner. Yet  Johnson  did  not  feel  disturbed.3  The  North, 
nevertheless,  took  the  action  of  Mississippi's  convention, 
in  its  refusal  to  accede  to  the  President's  suggestion  for 
a  qualified  suffrage,  as  indicative  of  Southern  sentiment. 
While  the  Provisional  Governors  were  calling  conven- 
tions in  the  remainder  of  the  southern  States,  the  var- 
ious political  forces  were  being  gathered  in  the  North. 
The  Democrats  of  New  York  in  State  convention  at 
Albany  on  September  6th  and  7th,  1865,  developed  a 
complete  change  of  policy.  The  party  avoided  its  for- 
mer leaders  and  joined  the  ranks  of  Johnson  supporters. 
Horatio  Seymour,  who  was  a  delegate,  failed  to  receive 
the  presidency  of  the  convention,  a  position  logically 
his.  Hon.  J.  M.  Humphrey,  of  Erie,  a  man  compara- 
tively new  in  the  Democratic  State  councils,  received  the 
honor.     Samuel   J.  Tilden,  who  had   been  active  under 

Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States  (New  York,  1896),  vol.  v,  p. 
533.  Tribune  Almanac,  1866,  p.  43.  Of  the  Union  State  Conventions 
held,  Massachusetts,  Vermont,  Maine,  New  York,  Minnesota  and 
Iowa,  declared  directly  or  indirectly  for  impartial  suffrage  without  dis- 
tinction of  race.  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Wisconsin,  Cali- 
fornia and  Colorado,  did  not  mention  the  subject.  Nevada  declared 
against  it. 

2Appleton's  Ann.  Cyclopedia,  1865,  p.  693.  The  resolutions  contained 
Stevens'  conquered-province  idea,  and  further  ' '  that  Congress  should 
declare  as  forfeited  and  vested  in  the  government,  the  property  of  all 
rebels  whose  estates  exceed  the  sum  of  $10,000,  and  that  the  proceeds 
of  the  property  so  confiscated  should  be  applied  to  increase  the  pensions 
of  those  entitled  thereto  by  the  casualties  of  the  war,  to  pay  the  dam- 
ages done  by  the  enemy  to  loyal  citizens,  and  to  reduce  the  burden  of 
the  national  debt." 

'Rhodes,  op.  cit.,  p.  534. 


49J  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  ^ 

the  old  regime,  was  so  discredited  that,  after  a  persist- 
ent canvass  for  the  nomination  for  attorney-general,  he 
was  forced  to  refuse  peremptorily  the  use  of  his  name. 
On  the  other  hand,  John  Van  Buren,  who  was  perhaps 
the  leading  War  Democrat  in  the  State  and  the  invet- 
erate foe  of  Seymour,  was  nominated  for  attorney- 
general.  Another  evidence  of  the  change  came  in  the 
nominations  of  Slocum  and  of  Lucius  Robinson.1  The 
former  had  been  a  Republican  member  of  the  State 
Assembly  in  1859  and  at  the  time  the  war  broke  out  was 
the  Republican  treasurer  of  Onondaga  County.  Slocum 
was  named  by  the  Democrats  for  secretary  of  state. 
Robinson's  nomination  for  comptroller,  the  same  office 
which  he  then  held  under  the  Unionists,  was  even 
stronger  evidence  of  the  change  in  Democratic  senti- 
ment. Robinson  had  been  brought  into  public  life  by 
the  Republicans  in  the  campaign  for  Fremont  and  had 
acted  with  them  until  the  present  except  that  he  had 
refused  in  1864  to  support  Lincoln,  whose  conservatism 
disgusted  him.  The  World,  commenting  on  the  change 
of  Democratic  ideas,  declared  that,  "  the  Democratic 
party  of  New  York  will  ride  no  dead  horses ;  will  fight 
no  spent  weapons ;  but  will  make  a  manly  declaration  of 
its  views  on  the  questions  most  important  to  be  decided 
now  and  most  fruitful  of  consequences  in  the  future."3 
The  Times  seemed  unable  to  appreciate  the  Democratic 
change  of  heart.  Its  comment  upon  the  World's  state- 
ment was : 

They  parade  this  intention  as  if  it  were  something  very  meri- 
torious— a  piece  of  self-abnegation  that  ought  to  be  worth  to 
the  party  a  good  many  thousand  votes.     It  is  hardly  worth 

1  Cf.  also  Rhodes,  vol.  iii,  pp.  25-26. 
"New  York  World,  Sept.  6,  1865. 


£0  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [50 

while  to  smile  at  this  Falstaffian  assumption  of  magnanimity — 
this  cheap  virtue  of  dropping:  all  scandalous  by-gones  for  the 
public  good." ' 

The  convention,  overlooking  the  war  record  of  the 
party,  praised  the  proud  history  of  the  Democrats.2  It 
congratulated  the  State  and  Nation  on  the  return  of 
peace.  Subordination  of  the  military  to  the  civil  rule, 
recognition  of  the  equality  of  the  States,  and  opposition 
to  the  use  of  any  force  to  compel  the  States  to  adopt 
negro  suffrage  were  proclaimed.  This  plank  shows  how 
far  the  Democrats  of  New  York  had  drifted  from  their 
War  Governor.  Governor  Seymour's  demand3  that  the 
New  England  States  should  not  have  twelve  votes  in  the 
United  States  Senate  while  New  York  had  but  two  was 
effectively  silenced  by  the  distinct  declaration  in  the  plat- 
form of  the  "  equality  of  States."  The  convention  rec- 
ognized the  obligation  of  the  whole  country  to  pay  the 
national  debt.  It  gave  a  vote  of  thanks  to  the  soldiers 
and  sailors,  applauded  the  frank  abandonment  of  slavery, 
and  ended  with  a  resolution  to  support  Johnson  in  his 
policy,4  which,  denounced  by  the  Copperheads  as  tyran- 
nical and  cruel,  was  commended  as  evincing  "  enlight- 
ened statesmanship,  sound  political  theory  and  an  old- 
fashioned,  time-honored  regard  for  the  relations  and 
rights  of  the  States  and  the  Federal  Government  as 
established  by  the  Constitution."  A  further  resolution 
was  adopted  which  charged  the  Secretary  of  State  and 
his  assistant  enumerators  with  fraud  in  connection  with 

!New  York  Times,  Sept.  7,  1865. 

'New  York  World,  Sept.  8,  1865. 

•New  York  Times,  Sept.  8,  1865. 

*New  York  Evening  Post,  Sept.  6,  1865.  The  Evening  Post  had 
predicted  the  chief  points  which  would  appear  in  the  Democratic  plat- 
form. 


5I]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  ^ 

the  census.1  The  Union  State  journals  accused  the 
Democrats  of  "artfully  dodging  their  record  and  profes- 
sion," and  of  fearing  to  "make  an  issue  with  the  Union 
party  on  any  great  public  question."3  These  charges 
were  rebutted  by  the  Democratic  journals  on  the  points 
that  Democrats  had  simply  consented  to  drop  the  sup- 
port of  slavery,  as  the  South  had  done,  "  but  that  they 
still  stick  to  the  basic  principles  of  the  ancient  Demo- 
cratic party  .  .  .  strict  construction  of  the  constitution  .  .  . 
States'  rights  and  .  .  .  personal  liberty."3 

The  friends  and  neighbors  of  General  Slocum  in  his 
home  town,  Syracuse,  were  loud  in  their  pre-con- 
vention  claims  that  Slocum  would  not  accept  the  Dem- 
ocratic nomination.  "  The  idea  is  too  preposterous 
for  belief.  There  is  some  infernal  jugglery  here,  in 
which  General  Slocum  is  not  a  participant,  but  of  which 
he  is  made  the  unconscious  victim,"4  was  the  opinion  of 

1  New  York  World,  Aug.  i,  1865.  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  8,  1865. 
New  York  Evening  Post,  Sept.  6,  1865.  Mr.  Depew  replied  by  letter 
to  Mr.  Tweed's  request  for  a  reconsideration  of  the  census  returns  for 
New  York  City,  stating  that  he  had  no  power  to  reopen  the  matter. 
Greeley  defended  Depew  from  the  charge  of  fraud.  "The  letter  of  Mr. 
Depew  is  plain  and  explicit.  He  is  an  officer  of  the  law  and  must  obey 
the  law.  .  .  .  The  Secretary  of  State  appoints  his  agents,  and  takes 
their  word  sworn  under  oath.  There  his  labor  ends.  .  .  .  Because  the 
census  of  Mr.  Secretary  Depew  did  not  carry  out  the  estimates  of  that 
of  Mr.  Marshal  Rynders,  taken  ten  years  ago,  some  of  our  Democratic 
newspapers  began  to  howl  and  shout  and  cry  '  fraud '  .  .  .  Mr.  Rynders 
being  a  disciple  of  the  philosophy  that  labors  to  extract  the  largest 
number  of  votes  from  the  smallest  given  number  of  voters,  he  made  as 
much  of  Democratic  New  York  as  possible.  ..." 

'Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  8,  1865.  Utica  Morning  Herald, 
Sept.  7,  1865.     Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  8,  1865. 

'Albany  Argus,  Sept.  9,  1865. 

4  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  7,  1865.  Carroll  E.  Smith,  editor  of 
the  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  was  the  ablest  Radical  editorial  writer  in 
central  New  York. 


52  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [-52 

Carroll  E.  Smith,  one  of  his  closest  friends.  The  Syra- 
cuse Daily  Standard,  however,  was  not  so  loath  to  be- 
lieve that  Slocum  would  accept.1  Faithful  to  the  last, 
the  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  after  Slocum  had  accepted 
the  nomination,  excused  his  conduct  on  the  ground  that 
the  President  had  not  sustained  him  in  part  of  his  mili- 
tary policy  around  Vicksburg.2  The  Times3  said  of 
General  Slocum  that  it  "  knew  of  no  reason  why  he 
should  not  have  been  the  Republican  candidate. " 

Lucius  Robinson  was  well  thought  of  by  both  parties.4 
"  He  has  proved  a  most  faithful,  valuable  officer,"  said 
Greeley,  "  whom  every  would-be  plunderer  of  the  state 
regards  with  unfeigned  detestation.  Being  a  genuine 
Democrat,  a  true  Republican,  a  hearty  Unionist,  and  an 
inflexibly  honest  and  faithful  guardian  of  the  treasury, 
he  must  be  elected  by  a  majority  of  more  than  half  a 
million."5 

1  Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  Sept.  11,  1865. 

'Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  12,  1865.  General  Slocum  had  issued 
Military  Order  no.  22  to  the  effect  that  no  district  commander  should 
permit  any  military  organization  within  his  district  other  than  those 
under  the  control  of  the  United  States  authorities.  If  any  outrage  oc- 
curred, an  armed  force  should  be  dispatched  to  the  scene  and  all  persons 
disarmed  within  a  radius  of  ten  miles.  President  Johnson  wrote  a 
letter  suggesting  the  establishment  of  a  citizen  militia  in  each  county  of 
Mississippi,  which  of  course  was  against  the  Slocum  order.  The  cause 
for  Order  no.  22  was  that  Governor  Sharkey  ordered  the  formation  of 
two  militia  companies  in  every  county  of  Mississippi.  Slocum  then 
issued  his  order,  basing  it  on  the  lawlessness  in  the  state  against  blacks, 
Union  soldiers,  messengers  and  sympathizers.  Governor  Sharkey  had 
appealed  to  Johnson,  who  sustained  him. 

sNew  York  Times,  Sept.  8,  1865. 

4  New  York  Evening  Post,  Sept.  18,  1865. 

5  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  9,  1865. 


53j  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  ^ 

"  The  ticket  is  not  personally  strong,  but  politically 
liberal ; "  said  the  World  ....  "  This  is  a  generous 
recognition,  by  the  convention,  of  the  fact  that  the  main 
questions  on  which  parties  have  divided  for  the  last  ten 
years   have   ceased    to   have  any  vitality." ■     In   precise 

•New  York  World,  Sept.  8,  1865. 
The  Democratic  Ticket  was  as  follows: 

Secretary  of  State— Henry  W.  Slocum,  of  Onondaga. 
Comptroller — Lucius  Robinson,  of  Chemung. 
Attorney-General— John  Van  Buren,  of  New  York. 
Treasurer — General  Marsena  R.  Patrick,  of  Ontario. 
State  Engineer — Sylvanus  H.  Sweet,  of  Oneida. 
Canal  Commissioner — Cornelius  W.  Armstrong,  of  Albany. 
Prison  Inspector — Andrew  J.  McNutt,  of  Allegany. 
Judges  of  the  Court  of  Appeals — John  W.  Brown,  of  Orange. 

Martin  Grover,  of  Allegany. 
Clerk  of  Appeals— Edward  O.  Perrin,  of  Kings. 

New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  8,  1865. 
The  Union  Ticket  was  as  follows: 

Secretary  of  State— General  Francis  C.  Barlow,  of  New  York. 
Comptroller — Colonel  Thos.  H.  Hillhouse,  of  Ontario. 
Attorney-General— General  John  H.  Martindale,  of  Monroe. 
Treasurer— Colonel  Joseph  Howland,  of  Dutchess. 
State  Engineer— J.  Piatt  Goodsell,  of  Oneida. 
Canal  Commissioner— Robert  C.  Dorn,  of  Schenectady. 
Prison  Inspector— General  Henry  W.  Barnum,  of  Onondaga. 
Judges  of  the  Court  of  Appeals— Ward  Hunt,  of  Oneida. 

John  K.  Porter,  of  Albany. 
Clerk  of  Appeals— Henry  Jones,  of  Cattaraugus. 

New  York  Evening  Post,  Sept.  21,  1865. 
The  Democratic  State  Central  Committee  appointed  by  the  Conven- 
tion was: 

1st  District— Charles  E.  Carvell,  Peter  B.  Sweeney. 
2d  District— Homer  A.  Nelson,  William  M.  Parks. 
3d  District— Peter  Cagger,  T.  L.  Laffin. 
4th  District— Arthur  W.  Hunter,  W.  J.  Averill. 
5th  District — John  A.  Green,  J.  T.  Spriggs. 
6th  District— Henry  D.  Barto,  Christopher  A.  Waldo. 
7th  District— E.  P.  Ross,  Charles  C.  B.  Walker. 
8th  District — Dean  Richmond,  A.  P.  Lanning. 

Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Sept.  8,  1865. 


54  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [54 

contradiction  Henry  R.  James,  of  the  Ogdensburg  Daily 
Journal,  stated  that  "The  resolutions  put  forth  by  the 
Albany  Convention  do  not  embody  the  real  sentiments 
of  the  Democratic  party  and  were  only  adopted  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  the  consent  of  a  candidate  whose 
acceptance  was  deemed  essential  to  give  the  ticket  even 
the  air  of  respectability."  x  The  Herald,  however,  com- 
mended the  Democracy  upon  the  fact  that  they  had 
"  recovered  their  temper,  and  see  something  that  they 
can  praise  and  rejoice  over,"  .  .  .  also,  that 

those  intriguing  politicians  who  were  responsible  for  the  fol- 
lies and  disasters  of  the  party  during  the  war  were  kept  in  the 
background  of  the  Convention.  In  short  the  Convention 
appears  content  to  let  bygones  be  bygones,  and  have  nomi- 
nated a  ticket  representing  almost  every  element  of  the  float- 
ing material  in  opposition  to  the  Chase  radicals  and  secesh 
sympathizing  elements,  and  drawn  them  together  on  the  com- 
mon platform  of  endorsement  and  support  of  the  reorganiza- 
tion policy  of  President  Johnson.' 

The  "  Democratic  -  Republican  -  Copperhead  -  Union 
League  Convention,"3  according  to  the  Buffalo  Express,* 
had  "  resolved  itself  out  of  existence  as  a  distinctive 
political  organization ; "  but  no  trace  of  such  an  act 
could  be  found  in  the  comments  of  its  neighbor,  the 
Buffalo  Daily  Courier.  "The  bold  and  unreserved 
enumeration  of  principles,  the  proud  reference  to  the 
past  history  of  the  party  in  our  country's  glory  and  the 
manly  grapplings  with  the  new  issues  upon  us,  contrast 
most   favorably  with   the  timid   policy  and  dodging  of 

1  Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  19,  1865. 
s  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  8,  1865. 
1  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Sept.  8,  1865. 
4  Buffalo  Express,  Sept.  8,  1865. 


55]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  ^ 

momentous  issues  by  the  Radical  conventions  through- 
out the  States."1 

With  the  exception  of  the  New  York  News2  all  of  the 
New  York  City  and  State  papers  which  claimed  to  be  of 
the  Democratic  faith,  endorsed  the  platform  and  candi- 
dates. Yet,  certain  of  the  more  conservative  up-State 
Democratic  organs  attempted  to  appeal  to  the  War 
Democrats  and  those  who  had  deserted  to  the  Unionist 
side,  on  the  basis  that  the  candidates  of  the  Albany  con- 
vention were  ''honest  men  who  have  not  in  the  past 
acted  with  the  Democratic  organization  and  who  are  not 
so  wedded  to  the  interests  of  any  mere  party  as  to  ren- 
der subservient  to  them  the  higher  interests  of  the  coun- 
try."3 The  Democratic  candidates,  even  so,  raised  the 
question  among  the  State  Radical  journals  "  whether  a 
party  which  unconditionally  surrenders  can  win  a  vic- 
tory."4 "The  game  of  disloyalty  has  been  played  and 
effectually  lost;  and  it  is  the  evident  purpose  of  the  lead- 
ers to  regenerate  the  party,"  was  the  complacent  com- 
ment of  the  Evening  Post  upon  the  convention's  nom- 
inees.5 

The  Union  Party,6  of  New  York,  met  in  convention 

1  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Sept.  8,  1865. 

'New  York  News,  Sept.  5-12.  See  Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Ad- 
vertiser, Sept.  9,  1865. 

s  Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  Sept.  8,  1865. 

4  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  7,  1865.  Buffalo  Express,  Sept.  8, 
1865.     Binghamton  Daily  Republican,  Sept.  8,  1865. 

5  New  York  Evening  Post,  Sept.  6,  1865. 

•The  Republicans,  under  the  leadership  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  avoided 
the  use  of  the  name  Republican.  They  assumed  the  use  of  the  term 
"The  Union  Party,"  in  order  to  attract  the  War  Democrats,  without 
whose  aid  it  would  have  been  difficult  to  end  the  Rebellion.  The  local 
Republican  organizations  were  used,  for  the  War  Democrats  had  in 
general  no  definite  organization.     When  the  Conservative  element  sue- 


156  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [56 

at  Syracuse  September  20,  1865.  In  the  words  of 
Charles  J.  Folger,  temporary  chairman  of  the  conven- 
tion :  "  The  contest  adjourned  from  the  forum  to  the 
battlefield  and  fought  out  successfully,  as  we  supposed, 
in  the  field  has  been  adjourned  once  more  to  the  forum. 
We  have  already  beaten  the  foe,  we  must  press  on  and 
secure  the  fruits  of  victory  which  belong  to  us/'  ?  Sec- 
retary of  State  Chauncey  M.  Depew,  on  taking  his  seat 
as  permanent  president  of  the  convention,  exhibited  his 
characteristic  good  humor.  In  denouncing  the  Demo- 
crats for  trying  to  reap  the  results  of  the  war  when  they 
had  so  opposed  it,  he  was  reminded  of  the  adage : 

"  When  the  Devil  was  sick,  the  Devil  a  monk  would  be ; 
When  the  Devil  got  well,  the  devil  a  monk  was  he." ' 

Certain  of  the  Radical  journals  gave  an  unpleasant  dis- 
play of  political  snobbishness  in  stating  that  there  was 
not  much  diversity  of  opinion  among  the  delegates  and 
that  just  a  fair  ticket  would  be  elected.3  But  this  must 
not  be  taken  for  the  attitude  of,  perhaps,  the  majority  of 

ceeded  in  counteracting  the  influence  of  the  Radical  wing  of  the  Union 
Party  in  1868,  the  tendency  toward  a  rejuvenation  of  the  Republican 
Party  manifested  itself.  The  term  "Radical"  did  not  please  the  Con- 
servatives, while  there  was  little  necessity  for  a  further  use  of  the  term 
"Union."  Hence,  the  adoption  of  the  official  title,  "The  National 
Union  Republican  Party,"  by  the  national  nominating  convention  of 
1868.  The  term  "Union"  was  dropped  from  the  official  title  by  the 
National  Convention  of  1872. 

Professor  W.  A.  Dunning  gives  an  excellent  discussion  of  "The 
Union  Party,"  in  an  article  entitled  "The  Second  Birth  of  the  Repub- 
lican Party."  The  American  Historical  Review,  XVI,  no.  1,  Oct., 
1910,  pp.  56-63. 

xUtica  Morning  Herald,  Sept.  22,  1865. 

'Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  21,  1865. 

'Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Sept.  20,  1865. 


57]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  $y 

the  Unionist  delegates,  who  under  the  leadership  of 
Ellis  H.  Roberts  realized  that  "  Haste  makes  waste/' x 

It  was  popular  in  both  parties 2  to  nominate  prominent 
soldiers.  Major-General  Barlow,3  who  behaved  so  splen- 
didly at  Antietam,  was  nominated  for  Secretary  of  State 
in  place  of  Chauncey  M.  Depevv.4  Depew,  whose  chances 
were  very  favorable  for  a  renomination,  made  himself  a 
victim  on  the  altar  of  party  good  and  declined  to  have 
his  name  considered.  The  other  civilians  who  had  been 
elected  upon  the  1863  ticket  also  gave  way  to  the  soldier 
candidates.  General  John  H.  Martindale,  a  West-Pointer, 
was  chosen  for  attorney-general  over  Cochrane.  For 
inspector  of  prisons,  General  Henry  W.  Barnum  was 
selected  in  place  of  Bates. 

Practically  the  same  conditions  existed  in  the  Union 
Convention  as  had  prevailed  in  that  of  the  Democrats  at 
Albany.      War    Democrats    elbowed    Conservative    and 

1  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Sept.  29,  1865. 

*  Harper's  Weekly,  under  the  title  "  New  Parties:  We  are  at  the  end 
of  parties  "  said:  "  Of  the  parties  that  existed  when  the  war  began  the 
name  ■  Democratic '  alone  remains.  The  Constitutional  Union  Party 
survives  only  in  John  Bell  drinking  success  to  the  rebellion  in  bad 
whiskey.  The  Republican  Party  as  such  has  secured  its  great  object  of 
limiting  the  extension  of  slavery.  The  necessities  of  the  case,  in  a 
nation  waging  a  civil  war,  divide  us  all  into  two  bodies:  those  who  sup- 
port the  administration  in  its  war  policy  and  those  who  do  not.  But 
the  old  party  lines  do  not  separate  us.  The  Party  of  the  Administra- 
tion is  composed  of  men  as  different  as  the  late  Edward  Everett, 
General  Butler,  John  A.  Griswold,  Thurlow  Weed  and  Charles  Sumner, 
who  were  respectively  leaders  of  the  Bell-Everett,  the  Breckinridge, 
the  Douglas  parties  and  both  wings  of  the  Republican  Party  before  the 
war.  We  are  at  the  end  of  parties."  Harper's  Weekly,  IX,  114,  Feb. 
25,  1865. 

*  Cox,  Military  Reminiscences  of  the  Civil  War  (New  York,  1900), 
vol.  i,  p.  330. 

*The  vote  for  Secretary  of  State  was:  General  Barlow,  191;  General 
Van  Wyck,  172;  General  Daniel  E.  Sickles,  3;  C.  M.  Depew,  1. 


58  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [58 

Radical  Unionists.  Thurlow  Weed  urged  the  Unionists 
to  go  into  the  campaign  with  no  candidates  whose  affil- 
iations had  been  Democratic.1  Yet,  due  to  the  laissez 
faire  attitude  of  the  delegates,  or  perhaps  better  the 
lack  of  an  esprit  de  corps,  General  Barlow,  ex-Democrat, 
received  the  chief  nomination,  which  was  termed  by  the 
Argus  as  an  insult  to  Democratic  voters.2  General 
Sickles,  who  ran  for  the  same  nomination,  had  also  been 
a  Democrat.  It  was  he  who  had  stated  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  that  New  York  City  would  free  itself 
from  the  dominion  of  the  State  government  in  the  event 
of  secession.3  Daniel  J.  Halstead,  the  leading  Demo- 
cratic editor  in  the  central  portion  of  the  State,  ex- 
plained to  the  Radicals  of  the  State  that  General  Barlow 
had  been  preferred  because  he  was  unknown  and  had 
not  made  himself  obnoxious  to  the  leaders,  while  Depew 
had  been  "  shuffled  off  with  a  resolution  endorsing  his 
census  frauds,  and  Van  Wyck  without  even  a  resolution 
of  thanks  for  herding  with  the  negroes."4 

The  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Unionists  were  the 
result  of  contending  forces  in  the  Convention.  The 
Radicals  of  the  party  claimed  the  majority  by  70  to  50.5 
Nearly  all  of  the  Radicals  came  from  the  interior  and 
northern  portions  of  the  State,  while  a  majority  of  the 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  16,  1865. 

2  Albany  Argus,  Sept.  23,  1865. 

'Burgess,  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution  (New  York,  1906),  vol.  i, 
p.  147;  Brummer,  New  York  During  the  Civil  War  (New  York,  191 1), 
p.  125. 

4  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Sept.  25,  1865.  Ending  his  re- 
view of  the  Union  Convention,  Mr.  Halstead  wrote:  "Let  the  com- 
bative Raymond,  the  depopulating  Depew,  and  the  prodigious  Barnum, 
be  held  in  everlasting  remembrance  as  the  triple  prodigies  of  the 
occasion." 

6  New  York  Times,  Sept.  20,  1865. 


59]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  ^ 

delegates  from  the  southeastern  counties  were  conserva- 
tive. The  Conservatives  were  equally  assertive  of  their 
control.  Through  the  adroitness  of  Thurlow  Weed  in 
preventing  a  test  vote,  it  is  difficult  to  state  with  exact- 
ness which  side  had  a  majority.  It  appears,  neverthe- 
less, that  the  prevailing  opinion  among  those  in  at- 
tendance was  Radical.  Among  the  more  prominent  of 
the  Radicals  were  Charles  S.  Spencer,  of  New  York, 
Charles  J.  Folger,  chosen  as  temporary  chairman,  Gen- 
eral C.  H.  Van  Wyck,  of  Orange  County,  and  Horace 
Greeley.  The  latter  appeared  indifferent  to  the  nomina- 
tions but  insisted  that  the  platform  should  be  positive 
and  should  read  a  lecture  to  the  administration  at  Wash- 
ington.1 

However,  Henry  J.  Raymond  and  Thurlow  Weed  con- 
trolled the  convention.  They  had  openly  declared  them- 
selves for  Johnson.2  Preston  King,  of  Ogdensburg,  a 
former  colleague  and  friend3  of  Johnson's  in  Congress, 
and  William  H.  Seward  represented  the  two  factions  in 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  31,  1865. 

'  New  York  Times,  Sept.  20,  1865.  See  Albany  Evening  Journal, 
Sept.  31,  1865.  The  World  looked  upon  "the  conduct  of  the  Weed- 
Raymond  club,  in  respect  to  support  of  President  Johnson,"  as  "that 
of  jealous  petulant  children.  They  insist  that  the  executive  shall  have 
no  friends  unless  they  be  enrolled  in  the  little  joint-stock  company  of 
which  Seward  is  president,  Weed  is  treasurer,  and  Raymond  is  manag- 
ing agent.  They  would  exclude,  first,  the  Democrats,  who  comprise 
more  than  half  the  voters  of  the  State;  and  next,  the  Greeley  Republi- 
cans, who  make  up  very  much  more  than  one-half  of  the  remaining 
voters.  Mr.  Johnson  has  no  idea  of  making  the  number  of  his  friends 
in  this  State  so  'conveniently  small'  as  Mr.  Seward  would  advise." 
New  York  World,  Oct.  18,  1865. 

•  King's  friendship  for  Johnson  is  shown  by  a  letter  which  Sumner 
wrote  to  Francis  Lieber,  "Aug.  nth.  .  Preston  King  and  Mr. 
Blair  went  to  the  President  when  he  was  intoxicated  and  took  him 
away  from  the  hotel  and  sheltered  him  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Blair." 
Pierce,  Sumner,  vol.  iv,  p.  250. 


60  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [60 

New  York  which  had  been  contending  for  Johnson's 
favor.  Differences  were  patched  up,  however,  and  King 
accepted  the  office  of  Collector  of  the  Port  of  New  York 
which  he  held  but  a  short  time,  owing  to  his  untimely 
death.1  It  was  generally  believed  that  Weed  controlled 
King  who  was  the  dispenser  of  custom-house  patronage, 
provost-marshals,  internal  revenue  officers  and  indirectly 
of  postmasters.  That  Weed  used  this  indirect  control 
over  the  national  patronage  within  the  State  to  regulate 
matters  in  the  Union  State  Convention  was  advanced  as 
the  reason  for  his  power  over  the  Radicals. 

The  facts  as  to  the  refusal  of  Chauncey  M.  Depew 
to  stand  for  the  renomination  for  secretary  of  state 
illustrate  Weed's  peculiar  power.  The  usual  rumors 
and  counter-rumors  attendant  upon  the  eve  of  a  political 
convention  assumed  all  manner  of  phases  during  the 
night  of  September  19th.  Weed  had  ascertained  shortly 
after  midnight  that  the  Radicals  had  decided  upon  Sen- 
ator Folger  as  temporary  chairman.  Adopting  Folger's 
name  at  once,  Weed  gave  out  that  Folger  belonged  to 
the  Conservative  side  of  the  house,  thus  attempting  to 
receive  credit  for  bringing  his  name  before  the  Conven- 
tion. Weed  still  continued  to  press  the  name  of  Gen- 
eral Barlow  for  the  highest  office  to  be  filled.  To  coun- 
teract this  movement  the  Radicals  worked  for  Depew 
with  such  success  that  it  looked  for  a  time  as  if  he  would 
beat  out  the  soldier-candidate.  Thereupon,  Weed  sent 
for  Depew,  to  whom  he  stated  that  if  he  (Depew)  wanted 
the  nomination  assurance  could  be  given  that  no  name 
would  be  presented  against  him  by  the  Conservative 
side.     Depew,  having  thus  been  tendered  the  nomination 

1  He  jumped  from  a  ferry  boat  in  a  moment  of  insanity  while  crossing 
the  North  River. 


61]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  fa 

by  both  factions  with  the  promise  that  no  opposition 
would  be  encountered,  declined  to  be  considered  as  a 
candidate.  The  convention  was  officially  informed  at 
ten  o'clock  on  the  20th  that  Depew  declined  to  permit 
the  use  of  his  name.  As  a  mark  of  esteem,  both  sides 
agreed  to  give  Depew  the  permanent  presidency  of  the 
convention.1 

The  failure  of  the  Radicals  to  gain  the  upper  hand  in 
the  convention  gave  the  Democrats  much  amusement. 
The  Buffalo  Daily  Courier  argued  for  the  Radicals  that 
in  view  of  their  numbers  they  had  been  entitled  to 
greater  power  in  the  convention  and  should  look  to 
Weed  for  satisfaction.3  The  Argus  told  Greeley  that  all 
he  lacked  in  order  to  make  a  leader  was  courage ; 3  while 
the  Utica  Daily  Observer  consoled  the  Unionist  con- 
vention by  stating  that  it  was  not  the  only  place  where 
Radicalism  had  come  to  grief.4 

Taking  courage  from  the  action  of  Ohio,  Pennsylvania 
and  Massachusetts,5  the  Radicals  in  the  Convention  de- 
cided to  vote  for  a  resolution  which  affirmed  the  right  of 
all  loyal  southerners,  that  is,  negroes,  to  have  a  vote  in 
the  reorganization  and  management  of  their  several 
State  governments.6  The  Radicals  had  caught  the  spirit 
of  Sumner,  Stevens  and  Wade,  who  already  had  dis- 
cerned that  Johnson  was  not  to  be  moved.7     The  Presi- 

1  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  21,  1865. 
*  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Sept.  22,  1865. 
s  Albany  Argus,  Sept.  22,  1865. 

4  Utica  Daily  Observer,  Sept.  22,  1865. 

5  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  20,  1865;  Sept.  22,  1865. 

•New  York  World,  Sept.  21,  1865;  New  York  Evening  Post,  Sept. 
21,  1865. 

7  Senator  Wade,  of  Ohio,  and  Stevens  made  several  attempts  to  con- 
vert the  President  to  their  policy. 


62  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [62 

dent  during  the  first  month  of  his  administration  had 
given  the  Radical  leaders  cause  to  believe  that  he  favored 
the  immediate  enfranchisement  of  the  negroes.  Sumner, 
on  April  25th  writes:  "On  Saturday  the  Chief  Justice 
and  myself  visited  him  in  the  evening,  especially  with  the 
view  of  conversing  on  negro  suffrage.  Suffice  to  say 
that  he  is  well  disposed,  and  sees  the  rights  and  neces- 
sities of  the  case.  ...  I  am  confident  that  our  ideas  will 
prevail."1  But  Johnson,  within  a  month,  on  reaching  a 
final  decision,  completely  reversed  his  policy.  Due  to 
popular  indifference  and  discord  among  the  Republicans, 
Thaddeus  Stevens,  Henry  W.  Davis  and  Senator  Wade 
saw  little  chance  of  success  against  the  Executive  in- 
fluence and  patronage.2 

In  the  Union  State  convention,  Horace  Greeley  and 
Henry  J.  Raymond  came  into  abrupt  collision.3  Greeley 
believed  that  the  negro-suffrage  resolutions,  which 
practically  would  have  forced  New  York  into  the  line  of 
opposition  toward  Johnson's  program,  would  have  passed 
had  it  not  been  for  Raymond.  The  latter  was  afraid  that 
such  an  action  would  place  the  State  in  the  hands  of  the 

1  Edward  L.  Pierce,  Memoir  and  Letters  of  Charles  Sumner  (Boston, 
1893),  vol.  iv,  p.  241.     Letter  to  F.  W.  Bird. 

*  Ibid.,  251.  The  public  men  outside  of  Congress,  journalists  and 
other  molders  of  public  sentiment,  gave  Sumner's  cause  little  support 
at  first.  Governor  Andrew,  (a)  of  Massachusetts,  and  Governor  Mor- 
ton, (b)  of  Indiana,  denounced  it.  Bryant  and  Godwin,  (c)  of  the 
Evening  Post,  contended  against  compulsory  action  in  the  matter  of 
suffrage.  Raymond,  (d)  of  the  Times,  took  strong  ground  against 
negro  suffrage  as  a  part  of  reconstruction.  Charles  A.  Dana,  then  of 
the  Chicago  Republican,  urged  Sumner  not  to  break  with  the  Presi- 
dent, (a)  Letter  to  Sumner,  Nov.  21,  1865.  (b)  Julian,  Political  Re- 
collections (Chicago,  1884),  pp.  260-68.  (c)  Godwin,  Life  of  Bryant 
(New  York,  1883),  vol.  ii,  pp.  238-42.  (d)  New  York  Times,  Sept. 
21,  1865. 

3  New  York  Times,  Sept.  20,  1865;  ibid.,  Sept.  21,  1865. 


63]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  63 

Democrats  through  their  support  of  the  administration 
measures.1  Greeley  did  not  make  a  decided  leader  for 
the  Radicals,2  so  in  the  absence  of  another,  Raymond 
was  able  to  enforce  his  views  in  the  platform. 

The  Convention  congratulated  the  people  of  the  State 
on  the  overthrow  of  rebellion  and  the  return  to  peace. 
It  thanked  the  soldiers  and  sailors  of  all  ranks.  It  de- 
plored the  death  of  Lincoln  and  recognized  "  in  Andrew 
Johnson  his  successor,  a  statesman  of  ability,  experience 
and  high  toned  patriotism  and  the  most  unsullied  integ- 
rity" .  .  .  and  further  "that  we  renew  to  him  in  his  ad- 
ministration those  assurances  of  cordial  and  effective 
support  which  were  tendered  by  us  in  his  nomination 
and  election."  Approval  was  given  of  the  initial  steps 
which  the  President  had  taken  toward  a  relaxation  of 
military  authority  in  the  southern  States.  Moreover, 
approval  was  given  of  the  restoration  to  the  public  of 
complete  control  of  civil  affairs,  "  just  as  soon  as  it  may 
be  found  compatible  with  the  preservation  of  order,  .  .  . 
the  exclusion  of  slavery,  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  consti- 
tutional obligations  of  the  national  authority  to  guarantee 
to  every  state  a  republican  form  of  government."4 

The  platform  affirmed  that  the  national  sovereignty 
over  the  subjects  committed  to  it  under  the  Constitution 
had  been  maintained  by  the  War.     And  that  whenever 

^he  convention  had  in  attendance  a  majority  of,  at  least,  fifty  pro- 
fessed Radicals.  However,  they  had  no  cohesion  or  discipline.  Hence, 
they  were  seldom  able  to  profit  from  their  strength.  No  doubt,  had  a 
resolve  been  in  order  which  distinctly  affirmed  the  right  of  all  loyal 
people  in  the  South  to  a  voice  in  the  reorganization  and  control  of  their 
several  State  governments,  it  would  have  passed  with  ease. 

'The  New  York  World  spoke  of  the  Syracuse  platform  asa"  shabby 
attempt  to  indorse  Secretary  Seward's  conduct."  New  York  World, 
Oct.  4,  1865. 

8  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  21,  1865.  'Ibid. 


64  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [64 

the  considerations  of  public  safety  made  it  wise,  the 
States  lately  in  rebellion  should  be  restored  to  the  exer- 
cise of  their  several  rights  under  the  Constitution.  It 
held  the  national  debt  inviolable  and  approved  of  the 
administration's  foreign  policy.  Among  the  minor  reso- 
lutions, it  denounced  as  "false  and  calumnious"1  the 
slurs  cast  by  the  Democratic  Convention  upon  the 
honesty  of  Chauncey  M.  Depew,  and  indorsed  his  official 
conduct  as  Secretary  of  State. 

The  editorials  of  the  Unionist  papers  were  so  uniform 
in  their  complacent  approval  of  the  Union  platform  and 
candidates,  that  no  special  mention  need  be  made.2 
Thurlow  Weed  called  the  resolutions  "  clear,  concise, 
and  emphatic."3  But  his  neighbor,  Mr.  Cassidy,  saw  in 
them  the  narrow  exclusiveness  and  rivalries  of  "  clique 
predominance,"4  which  he  contrasted  with  the  widened 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  21,  1865. 

2  The  Radical  papers  which  especially  praised  the  Union  platform 
were:  the  Buffalo  Commercial  Advertiser,  Auburn  Advertiser,  Syra- 
cuse Daily  Journal,  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Albany  Evening  Journal, 
Troy  Times,  and  Rochester  Democrat.  A  campaign  joke  was  published 
by  the  Argus  which  reacted  under  the  ready  wit  of  Carroll  E.  Smith, 
of  the  Syracuse  Journal,  upon  Dean  Richmond,  much  to  his  discom- 
fort.    On  September  21,  1865,  the  Argus  printed  a  telegram  which  read: 

"  Syracuse,  Sept.  20,  1  P.  M. 

"  All  gone  to  h — .     Will  leave  for  home  on  the  two  o'clock  train." 

The  Argus  used  it  to  show  that  the  Unionist  hopes  had  gone  sky 
high,  but  the  Journal  turned  it  to  mean  that  all  hopes  for  the  Demo- 
cratic ticket  had  vanished.  This  interpretation  the  Journal  claimed 
was  in  keeping  with  the  language  and  conviction  of  Dean  Richmond, 
when  he  replied  to  the  threat  of  the  Buffalo  railroad  strikers  that  they 
would  bolt  the  Democratic  ticket  this  (1865)  fall.  His  reply  on  that 
occasion  was  illuminating,  if  not  in  strict  accord  with  good  taste.  It 
was:  "The  Democratic  party  has  gone  to  h— ,  and  you  may  go  too." 
Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  22,  1865;  Albany  Argus,  Sept.  21,  1865. 

8  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  12,  1865. 

♦Albany  Argus,  Sept.  25.  1865. 


65]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  ^ 

purpose  of  the  Democrats  in  bringing  in  all  honest  men. 
The  Buffalo  Express  appeared  to  have  reverted  to  its 
infancy;  for  it  professed  to  believe  in  the  sincerity  of  the 
Radical  endorsement  of  President  Johnson.1 

The  campaign  which  followed  was  brief  and  without 
moment.  The  Evening  Post  on  October  nth,  gave  three 
reasons  for  the  inactivity  and  political  negligence  which 
manifested  itself  in  the  campaign. 

In  the  first  place,  the  excitements  of  the  great  war  have  been 
followed  by  their  natural  reaction  ;  lassitude  has  succeeded  to 
transport  and  indifference  to  intensity.  .  .  .  Another  reason 
for  this  indifference  is  that  both  parties  ...  in  the  State  of 
New  York  especially  .  .  .  have  put  in  nomination  some  of 
their  best  men,  from  whom  we  have  a  right  to  anticipate  a 
safe  and  sound  administration,  in  the  event  of  the  success  of 
either.".  .  .  But  there  is  a  third  cause  of  political  inactivity, 
not  so  obvious,  and  yet  more  potent  than  the  others ;  and 
that  is  a  growing  conviction  that  the  old  parties  must  soon 
give  way  to  new  combinations.  .  .  .  One  of  them,  indeed,  the 
so-called  Democratic  party,  is  already  half-dead  ;  ...  its 
candidates  and  its  principles  are  alike  assumed  for  an  occa- 
sion ;  but  its  vitality  is  paralyzed  and  its  memory  grows 
rotten.1 

The  prediction  of  the  Evening  Post,  however,  has  proved 
unsound,3   for   both    of   the   major   parties    have   passed 

1  Buffalo  Express,  Sept.  22,  23,  25,  1865. 

'New  York  Evening  Post,  Oct.  11,  1865. 

s  Syracuse  Courier  and  Union,  Sept.  8,  1865.  The  Courier  foresaw 
the  new  line  of  cleavage  foretelling  the  Reconstruction  period.  "The 
candidates  put  in  nomination  prove  the  growing  sentiment  even  among 
Republicans,  that  the  issues  on  which  that  party  was  originally  based, 
have  passed  away  and  that  on  the  new  issues  now  raised  by  the  ex- 
tremists they  feel  themselves  at  liberty  to  array  themselves  in  accord- 
ance with  the  dictates  of  their  own  judgment  and  in  antagonism  to  the 
utterances  with  which  the  extremists  are  seeking  to  lead  Republicanism 
into  hostility  to  the  President's  reconstruction  policy,  as  declared." 


66  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [66 

through  the  dark  valleys  and  troublesome  waters  of 
political  strife. 

As  was  natural,  the  Democrats  tried  to  throw  the 
Unionists  into  a  bad  light  with  the  President.  The 
Radicals  were  accused  of  strong  opposition  to  the  Presi- 
dent's policy  on  the  question  of  negro  suffrage.  This 
imputation  was  urgently  denied  by  the  moderate  and 
conservative  Unionists,  who  demanded  that  they  be 
given  full  faith  and  credit  for  the  sentiments  incorporated 
in  their  platform. 

The  Evening  Post  exhorted  the  southerners  to  "go 
about  their  peaceful  industries,  obey  the  laws,  .  .  .  secure 
equal  justice  to  all,"  x  thus  to  gain  an  early  withdrawal  of 
troops  and  a  return  to  peace.  It  cautioned  the  North 
and  South  against  the  misrepresentation  of  facts  by  the 
Democrats.  The  power  of  the  Radicals  was  discounted 
in  the  effort  to  support  the  platform  written  by  Ray- 
mond.2 The  Herald  came  forth  in  a  strong  effort  to 
second  Raymond's  position  in  the  platform.  Speaking 
of  Mr.  Stevens  and  Mr.  Sumner  the  Herald  said  : 

They  are  mere  politicians,  looking  to  party  objects  ...  having 
no  other  political  hobby  to  ride,  they  will  hang  on  the  negro. 
How  different  with  President  Johnson.  He  is  as  much  op- 
posed to  consolidation  as  he  is  to  secession.  He  is  neither  a 
visionary  nor  a  cynical  factionist.  .  .  .  He  sees,  as  every  states- 
man would  see,  that  the  only  duty  he  has  to  perform  is  to 
enable  the  States  to  resume  their  legitimate  functions  as 
members  of  the  Union.3 

Even  Seymour  was  forced  to  concede  that  national  affairs 
had  taken  an  unexpected  turn  for  the  better.  Still,  his 
attitude  was  narrow  and  unpatriotic.     He  confined  his 

1  New  York  Evening  Post,  Sept.  30,  1865.  2  Ibid. 

8  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  28,  1865. 


67]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  fy 

vision  to  one  of  war  debts  and  increased  burdens  as  a 
result  of  the  war.1 

Several  minor  personal  issues  added  life  to  the  cam- 
paign. Much  bitterness  resulted  from  an  unjust  com- 
parison by  Horace  Greeley,  of  General  Slocum  with 
Benedict  Arnold.2  The  Tribune  also  repeatedly  hurled 
the  charge  of  u  cotton  thief "  at  General  Slocum.3 
These  slanders  were  keenly  resented  by  the  World* 
which  charged  that  it  was  Thurlow  Weed  alone  who 
prevented  the  nomination  by  the  Unionists  of  both  Gen- 
eral Slocum  and  Lucius  Robinson.5  John  Van  Buren, 
who  was  running  for  attorney-general  with  the  Demo- 
crats, came  out  bitterly  against  Seymour,  blaming  him 
and  Vallandigham  for  the  party's  blunder  on  the  war 
issues.6     Greeley  humorously  remarked  : 

It  isn't  fair  for  John  to  deal  so  largely  in  sophistry  and  rig- 
marole in  his  public  addresses,  and  keep  his  truth  and  sense 
for  small  knots  of  personal  admirers.  But,  if  he  will  do  this, 
let  him  take  care  that  Secretary  Depew  is  among  his  hearers 

1  New  York  World,  Nov.  4,  1865.  In  an  exhaustive  speech  at 
Seneca  Falls,  New  York,  Seymour  made  a  complete  survey  of  the 
political  situation.  He  rebuked  party  passions;  put  the  question,  "  Why 
is  the  Union  not  restored?;"  assured  Jchnson  that  the  Democrats 
would  aid  him  in  carrying  out  his  pledge  to  restore  the  Union;  at- 
tempted to  show  how  the  workingman  would  be  hurt  by  a  Republican 
victory;  and  maintained  that  "  when  you  decide  this  government  has  the 
right  to  say  who  shall  and  who  shall  not  vote  in  the  Southern^States, 
you  decide  that  it  has  power  to  say  who  shall  and  who  shall  not  vote  in 
a  Northern  State." 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  31,  1865. 

%Ibid.,  Oct.  26,1865. 

4  New  York  World,  Oct.  20,  1865;  Oct.  28,  1865;  Nov.  2,  1865. 

''Ibid.,  Oct.  26,  1865. 

•New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  3,  1865;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Oct. 
23,  1865. 


68  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [68 

and  then  put  into  his  next  speech  what  Depew  says  of  him. 
That  will  do  it.1 

Mr.  Chauncey  Depew  had  stated  a  short  time  previous 
that  in  a  familiar  conversation  with  him,  Mr.  John  Van 
Buren  had  pronounced  Horatio  Seymour  "a  political 
accident"  and  "a  damned  fool."  At  that  time  Van 
Buren  had  demurred  to  the  retailing  of  private  conver- 
sations and  had  specifically  acknowledged  "  the  great 
intelligence  and  singular  personal  and  official  purity"  of 
Mr.  Seymour.2 

Among  the  Republicans  a  violent  personal  controversy- 
arose  between  Thurlow  Weed  and  Horace  Greeley. 
Each  used  his  own  newspaper  to  vituperate  the  other.3 
The  Nation  suggested  that  both  gentlemen  leave  their 
private  quarrels  out  of  the  newspapers  and  settle  it  in  a 
correspondence.4  The  Nation  gave  an  apt  characteriza- 
tion of  these  two  men  which  it  might  be  illuminating  to 
quote  in  part : 

We  believe  no  man  who  knows  him  can  sincerely  doubt  the 
perfect  personal  integrity,  the  scrupulous  veracity  and  the 
catholic  benevolence  of  the  editor  of  the  Tribune.  Mr. 
Weed,  during  his  long  career  as  a  political  leader,  has  made 
many  enemies.  Whether  deservedly  or  not,  he  has  the  repu- 
tation of  being  a  man  of  intrigue ;  and  if  parties  are  to  be 
managed,  as  we  suppose  they  must  be  while  parties  exist, 
nobody  can  bring  to  the  work  greater  dexterity  than  Mr. 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  3,  1865.  The  attack  against  Seymour 
was  first  made  at  a  small  meeting  in  Troy,  New  York,  after  Van  Buren 
had  addressed  a  larger  audience. 

1  New  York  Herald,  Nov.  2,  1865. 

*  Albany  Evening  Journal  and  New  York  Tribune. 

4  The  Nation,  vol.  i — ii,  p.  265.  The  Times,  also,  urged  harmony  be- 
tween the  two  lest  the  election  should  go  to  the  Democrats.  New 
York  Times,  Aug.  25,  1865. 


69]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  £g 

Weed  has  frequently  displayed.  Mr.  Greeley,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  not  a  good  party  tactician.  Perhaps  he  is  too  hon- 
est ;  certainly  he  has  too  little  control  over  a  temper  naturally 
violent.  When  he  is  angry,  and  he  is  often  angry,  he  can  no 
more  keep  a  secret  than  he  can  live  without  breathing.  When 
engaged  in  a  dispute  he  rarely  stops  to  cull  nice  phrases,  and 
he  has  an  uncomfortable  habit  of  giving  the  lie  direct. ' 

To  turn  the  tide  in  favor  of  the  Democrats  and  to 
overcome  the  ill-favor  of  the  party  caused  by  Seymour, 
Van  Buren  put  forth  herculean  efforts  in  the  campaign. 
He  was  backed  by  those  in  the  Democratic  Party  who 
were  rallying  around  John  A.  Dix  as  a  future  leader.2 
The  fact  that  General  Henry  W.  Slocum,  candidate  for 
secretary  of  state  on  the  Democratic  ticket,  and  General 
Henry  A.  Barnum,  candidate  for  inspector  of  prisons 
on  the  Union  ticket,  were  residents  of  Syracuse  made 
that  city  the  center  of  the  up-State  campaign.  It  was 
here  that  John  Van  Buren,  with  the  aid  of  Montgomery 
Blair  and  General  John  Cochrane,  centered  his  forces.3 

Following  the  example  set  by  the  New  York  City 
leaders,  the  campaign  up-State  degenerated  into  a  series 
of  personal  charges  against  certain  of  the  candidates  on 
both  tickets.  General  Barlow's  conduct  during  the  war 
was  minutely  inspected  by  the  Democratic  journals. 
The  defeat  of  the  Union  forces  at  Cold  Harbor  was  at- 
tributed   to   him.     His   unpopularity   with    the   privates 

1  The  Nation,  loc.  cit.  Speaking  of  Mr.  Greeley,  The  Nation  con- 
tinues: "  In  one  of  his  recent  replies  to  Mr.  Weed,  he  speaks  of  '  that 
shameful,  pernicious,  systematic  traffic  in  legislation,  franchises,  grants 
and  immunities,  whereby  Thurlow  Weed  has  become  rich  and  infam- 
ous.' .  Mr.  Weed  retorts  that  Mr.  Greeley  is  'ambitious,  selfish 
and  false,'  and  intimates  that  he  is  a  howling  demagogue." 

J  At  this  time,  however,  a  majority  of  the  Democrats  were  in  favor  ot 
Seymour. 

5  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Oct.  23,  1865,  et  al. 


y0  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [70 

was  emphasized  and  stories  were  told  of  how  he  per- 
mitted his  men  who  fell  out  of  line  from  exhaustion  on 
the  march  from  the  Wilderness  to  be  cruelly  and  wantonly 
shot.1  The  mid-campaign  was  also  enlivened  up-State 
by  the  raising  of  charges  against  General  Barnum, 
which  were  designed  particularly  to  injure  his  candi- 
dacy for  the  office  of  inspector  of  prisons.  It  appears 
that  General  Barnum  had  left  Syracuse  in  the  early  part 
of  the  war  as  Colonel  of  the  149th  Regiment  of  Volun- 
teers, raised  in  Onondaga  County.  Shortly  afterwards 
unpleasant  rumors  began  to  attach  themselves  to  his 
name.  These  culminated  on  September  26,  1864,  m 
fifty  fellow  citizens  of  his  political  faith  submitting 
charges  against  him  to  Secretary  of  War  Stanton.  These 
were  resurrected  and  fanatically  waved  by  the  Democrats 
to  defeat  his  election.  He  was  accused  of  violating  the 
"  rules  of  the  service  ...  to  the  prejudice  and  injury  of 
the  people  of  this  county."3  Further  he  was  charged 
with  selling  commissions  in  the  army  and  of  absenting 
himself  from  his  command  without  excuse.3  These 
charges  seem  to  have  been  pigeon-holed  by  Stanton  but 
testify  to  Barnum's  unpopularity  among  his  fellow  towns- 
men and  his  regiment.4 

In  defence  of  General  Barlow  the  Unionist  papers 
printed  the  report  of  his  brigade  commander  praising 
him  for  his  bravery  at  Antietam.5  But  regarding  General 
Barnum  no  particular  refutation  appears  to  have  been 
attempted  other  than  the  usual  party  praise.6     By  way  of 

1  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Sept.  25,  1865.       ■  Onondaga. 
'Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Oct.  23,  1865. 
*  Conversation  with  Duane  S.  Hurd,  Sergeant  149th  N.  Y.  V. 
6  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Oct.  6,  1865. 

•The  Elmira  Daily  Advertiser  lauded  Barnum  unstintingly  through- 
out the  campaign. 


7I]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  7l 

reprisal  the  Union  journals  made  capital  out  of  General 
Slocum's  sudden  change  of  faith.  Even  his  sometime 
staunch  supporter,  Carroll  E.  Smith,  printed  an  indirect 
attack  on  Slocum.  A  list  was  given  under  thirteen 
heads  of  those  who  would  support  Slocum,  among  them 
being : 

The  men  who  fled  to  Canada  to  avoid  the  draft  and  who  de- 
serted from  the  army  after  being  enlisted.  The  men  who 
swore  that  the  war  was  a  failure.  The  men  who  swore  that 
it  was  a  *d — d  nigger,  abolition'  war.  The  men  who  hoped 
that  every  man  who  went  to  war  would  he  killed.  The  men 
who  were  all  the  time  for  peace  on  any  terms.1 

The  Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  a  Radical  journal,  was  not 
so  easy  with  Slocum  but  lampooned  him  freely.9  How- 
ever, it  could  not  go  so  far  as  to  believe  the  charges  of  an 
unsigned  Vicksburg  contribution  to  the  Chicago  Repub- 
lican, which  accused  General  Slocum  of  being  the  leader 
in  a  gigantic  fraud  to  swindle  the  government.3  The 
weight  of  public  sentiment  in  both  parties  favored  Slocum, 
his  questionable  turn- over  in  politics  notwithstanding. 
Horace  Greeley  could  say  no  worse  of  Slocum  than 
"  Slocum  is  very  dispassionate,  indeed,  it  is  the  worst 
fault  we  have  to  find  with  him."4  Even  Harpers 
Weekly  found  him  a  man  M  whose  uprightness  and  honesty 
are  beyond  question,  and  whose  patriotism  has  come 
out  of  the  furnace-heat  of  a  four  years'  war  as  bright 
and  unsullied  as  the  stars  of  the  flag  he  fought  for."5 


1  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Oct.  19,  1865. 
1  Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  Oct.  5,  1865. 


*  Ibid.,  Oct.  6,  1865.  The  Tribune  published  similar  charges. 
4  Quoted  in  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Oct.  16,  1865. 
h  Harper's  Weekly,  Oct.,  1865.    The  Boston  Transcript  gave  a  calm 


72  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [y2 

Many  of  the  Radical  State  journals  made  campaign 
capital  out  of  the  published  statement  of  ex-Congressman 
John  B.  Haskins,  who  had  framed  the  resolutions  of  the 
Democratic  convention  but  had  since  fallen  out  with 
certain  of  his  colleagues.  He  stated  that  Manton  Mar- 
ble of  the  New  York  World,  and  Mr.  Cassidy  of  the 
Argus,  had  submitted  resolutions  to  the  Democratic 
convention  which  were  partly  thrown  out.  In  explain- 
ing his  motives  Mr.  Haskins  stated : 

I  knew  that  some  of  our  leaders,  so  called,  desired  a  simple 
indorsement  of  him  [Johnson]  to  divide  and  conquer  the 
enemy ;  but  with  me  the  paramount  idea  .  .  .  and  it  induced 
me  to  go  to  the  Convention,  in  view  of  the  curse  of  the  Chi- 
cago Platform  .  .  .  was  to  avoid  the  Bourbon  Vallandig- 
hamism  of  the  Ohio,  the  Jerry  Black  Buchananism  of  the 
Pennsylvania,  the  Camden  and  Amboy  Rip  Van  Winkleism 
of  the  New  Jersey,  Democratic  Platforms,  and  to  give  Presi- 
dent Johnson  a  sincere  and  hearty  indorsement.1 

Uniformly  the  Democratic  orators  and  journals  sought 
to  divert  the  discussion  from  Seymour's  Chicago  Plat- 
form, the  issues  of  which  were  now  "stone  dead."2 
Seymour  ended  the  campaign  for  the  Democrats  up- 
State,  at  Seneca  Falls,  on  November  5th.  The  burden 
of  his  address  was  a  rebuke  to  party  passions,  a  plea  for 
restoration  of  order  and  for  sound  finance.3 

This   address  was   made   to   offset   that   of  Secretary 

dispassionate  approval  of  Slocum  and  his  mid-campaign  speech.  Quoted 
in  Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  Oct.  13,  1865.  The  Buffalo  Daily  Courier 
proved  an  earnest  champion  of  Slocum  against  Radical  attacks,  Sept. 
28,  Oct.  15,  1865. 

1  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  23,  1865;  Rochester  Daily  Democrat, 
Sept.  25,  1865;  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Oct.  24,  1865. 

2  Syracuse  Daily  Courier,  Oct.  1,  1865;  Albany  Argus,  Sept.  17,  1865. 
8  Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  Nov.  6,  1865. 


73]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  y^ 

Seward  to  his  neighbors  in  Auburn,  on  October  20th. 
No  double  construction  could  have  been  placed  upon 
Seward's  remarks  in  support  of  the  administration : 

This  I  maintain  and  confidently  proclaim,  that  every  import- 
ant decision  of  the  administration  has  been  wise.  I  maintain 
with  equal  firmness  and  declare  with  still  greater  pleasure  the 
opinion  that  no  council  of  government  ever  existed  in  a  revo- 
lutionary period  in  any  nation,  which  was  either  more  har- 
monious or  more  loyal  to  each  other,  to  their  chief,  and  to 
their  country.1 

In  the  light  of  later  events  we  can  see  where  Seward  was 
misled. 

Montgomery  Blair,  who  had  been  drafted  into  the 
New  York  campaign  by  John  Van  Buren,  followed  in  the 
footsteps  of  Seward  and  devoted  practically  all  of  his 
campaign  speeches  to  proving  to  the  Democrats  that 
their  best  policy  was  to  support  the  President.3  But  the 
good  effect  of  Blair's  labors  was  largely  spoiled  by  the 
oratorical  genius  of  Wendell  Phillips,  who  enlivened  the 
campaign  by  his  attacks  on  President  Johnson.3 

Although  the  legislature  of  New  York  was  not  airing 
any  of  its  dirty  linen  at  the  time  of  the  campaign,  still  its 
past  reputation  and  the  generally  known  control  which 

Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  Oct.  23,  1865;  Buffalo  Daily  Courier, 
Oct.  27,  1865.  The  Daily  Courier  considered  Seward's  speech  a 
"studied,  desperate  attempt  to  undermine  public  confidence  in  the 
President  and  to  divert  public  attention  from  the  great  issues  of  the 
campaign." 

5  Buffalo,  Daily  Courier,  Oct.  21,  1865.  Perhaps  there  was  no  more 
faithful  advocate  of  Johnson's  administration  throughout  the  campaign 
among  the  Republican  papers  of  the  State  than  the  Ogdensburg  Daily 
Journal,  the  leading  Republican  organ  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State. 
Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal,  Oct.  3,  5,  16,  1865. 

•Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Oct.  20,  1865;  Albany  Evening  Journal, 
Oct.  20,  1865. 


74  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [74 

moneyed  interests  were  acquiring  in  it  forced  the  Repub- 
lican papers  to  repel  attack  on  several  occasions.  The 
general  charges  against  the  legislature  furnished  a  con- 
siderable item  in  the  resume  of  the  Democratic  campaign 
arguments  immediately  prior  to  the  election.1 

Early  in  the  campaign  the  political  situation  in  the 
State  had  appeared  from  the  viewpoint  of  an  outsider  as 
a  series  of  petty  party  quarrels.2  This  opinion  was  fully 
merited.  In  each  section  of  the  State  the  chief  editorial 
attention  was  given  to  the  conduct  of  quarrels  with  pet 
enemies.  The  Buffalo  Express  tore  at  its  Democratic 
neighbor  the  Buffalo  Daily  Courier ;  the  Syracuse  Daily 
Journal  carried  on  a  pithy  war  with  the  Albany  Argus 
and  incidentally  with  the  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  the 
Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser ;  the  Bingham- 
ton  Daily  Republican  was  very  bitter  in  its  constant 
bickerings  with  the  Elmira  Gazette,  and  between  the 
ancient  editorial  enemies  of  New  York  City  the  usual 
exchange  of  incivilities  occurred.  Exactly  why  the  cam- 
paign descended  so  low  journalistically  is  difficult  to 
determine.  It  may  have  been  due  to  the  lack  of  decided 
leaders  in  both  parties,  to  the  general  popular  character 
of  the  military  candidates  or  to  the  removal  of  the 
Democratic  policies  by  the  close  of  the  war. 

The  campaign  was  closed  in  a  whirlwind  of  personal 
defamation  directed  against  the  candidates  on  both 
tickets.  The  Democrats  had  the  advantage  there,  for  in 
addition  to  the  charges  against  Generals  Barlow  and 
Barnum,  they  had  been  able  to  unearth  a  scandal  in  con- 

1  Cf.  James  Parton,  How  New  York  City  is  Governed  (Boston,  1866), 
passim.  See  article  on  the  New  York  Legislature,  Harper's  Weekly, 
vol.  ix,  p.  210,  April  8,  1865. 

2  Springfield  Republican,  quoted  in  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Oct.  3, 
1865. 


75]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  y^ 

nection  with  the  name  of  J.  Piatt  Goodsell,  candidate  on 
the  Union  ticket  for  state  engineer.  The  only  basis  for 
their  charges  was  collateral  evidence  in  connection  with 
malfeasance  on  the  part  of  John  C.  Mather,  a  Democratic 
canal  commissioner.1  On  the  Democratic  ticket  Slocum 
was  forced  to  bear  the  brunt  of  Radical  attack,  in  reply 
to  which  the  Democrats  published  a  list  of  prominent 
men  who  had  endorsed  Slocum ;  among  these  names 
appear  those  of  Generals  Sherman,  Dix,  Sickles,  Coch- 
rane, Bartlett  and  Frank  P.  Blair ;  Montgomery  Blair, 
Judge  Barlow,  Judge  Edmonds  and  Lieutenant-Governor 
Campbell.2     Surely  an  imposing  array. 

But  if  the  Democratic  candidates  proved  not  so  vul- 
nerable as  their  Unionist  rivals  such  was  not  the  case 
with  the  Democratic  record,  which  the  Radical  journals 
took  good  care  should  not  be  forgotten.  "  It  is  impos- 
sible," said  the  Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal, 

that  a  party  which  only  six  months  ago,  with  the  record  of  its 
whole  life  before  it,  denounced  Andrew  Johnson  as  a  drunken 
boor,  and  Abraham  Lincoln  as  a  backwoods  buffoon,  should 
now  entertain  a  high  appreciation  of  President  Johnson. 
Neither  do  the  men  who  opposed  the  war,  calling  it  a  failure, 
entertain  any  more  love  for  it  now  than  they  did  a  year  ago 
for  our  brave  soldiers.  They  pass  empty  resolutions  of  thanks 
now  to  escape  the  responsibility  of  the  past  and  nominate 
such  as  are  willing  to  lend  themselves  to  a  base  purpose,  in 
hope  of  dividing:  the  Union  party  for  the  purpose  of  securing 
an  easy  victory  hereafter.* 

!Utica  Morning  Herald,   Oct.   24,    1865.     Goodsell  was  proven  to 
have  had  no  connection  with  the  matter. 
'Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Nov.  7,  1865. 

5  Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal,  Oct.  24,  1865;  Syracuse  Daily  Stand- 
ard, Nov.  2,  1865.  The  letters  of  Petroleum  V.  Nasby  served  with 
peculiar  force  in  this  and  later  campaigns.  It  is  difficult  to  turn  the 
shafts  of  ridicule.     As  such  it  is  instructive  to  view  the  attack  made 


yt>  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [76 

However,  the  prejudice  caused  by  the  disloyal  course 
of  the  Democrats  throughout  the  war  proved  too  strong 
for  success.     The  election  took  place  on  November  7th. 

upon  the  Democratic  position,  after  the  October  elections  of  1865. 
Letter  from  Petroleum  V.  Nasby,  after  the  October  elections:. 

"Ohio,  Ablishn!  Pennsylvania,  Ablishn!  Ablishn  and  nigger  suf- 
frage to  boot!  Injiany,  Ablishner  than  ever!  Noo  Gersey,  not  exactly 
Ablishn,  but  approachin  thereunto. 

Such  is  the  encouragin  news  I  red  in  the  noospapers  this  mornin! 
Sich  is  the  result  of  labers  Hercoolian,  in  the  above  named  States. 
.  .  .  The  pure  Dimokrasy  probably  will  carry  Noo  York;  but  what  con- 
solation is  that  to  me?  The  two  parties,  the  old,  anshent  Dimokrasy 
and  the  Ablish,  run  a  race  into  the  realm  of  Radikalism,  and  the 
Dimokrasy  beat  them  over  a  length.  .  .  With  a  platform  standing  by 
Johnson,  endorsin  his  anti-slavery  noshuns,  his  Suthern  oppreshun 
noshuns,  his  hanging  of  Mrs.  Surratt,  et  settery,  and  on  that  platform 
a  sojer  who  never  voted  a  Dimokratik  ticket  in  his  life,  who  went  into 
the  war  a  Radikle  Ablishnist,  and  who  come  out  a  Radikler  Ablishnist, 
I  don't  know  that  I  have  much  to  choose  atween  'em. 

Last  week  I  was  invited  in  to  a  county  in  Noo  York  to  address  a 
Dimokratik  meetin.  I  accepted  (es  my  expenses  were  paid  which  is 
cheaper  and  better  board  than  I  get  at  the  groceries  to  hum),  and  ak- 
kordingly  I  went.  I  commenst  deliverin  the  speech  I  hed  yoosed  all 
through  the  state  of  Noo  Gersey.  I  commenst  aboosin  the  nigger, 
when  the  cheerman  interrupted  me.  '  Well,'  sez  I,  '  wat  is  it?  '  rather 
angrily  for  I  git  warmed  up  and  sweatin,  and  don't  like  to  be  inter- 
rupted. 'Why,'  said  he,  'our  Constitoshin  allows  a  nigger  that's  got 
$250  to  vote,  and  most  ov  em  hev  that  sum,  and  we  make  it  a  point  to 
sekoor  em.'  'They're  a  d — d  site  better  off  then  most  of  us  white 
Dimokrats  in  Noo  Gersey,'  retorted  I,  a  droppin  the  nigger  and  goin 
agin  President  Johnson.  '  Stop,'  whispered  he,  '  our  platform  endorses 
President  Johnson.'  'Thunder,'  remarked  I,  droppin  President  John- 
son and  slidin  easily  into  a  vigorous  denunsiation  of  the  war.  '  Good 
God!'  sez  the  cheerman,  'stop!  our  platform  endorses  the  war.'  I  sed 
nuthin  this  time,  but  commenst  denounsin  the  debt.  '  Hold,'  sed  the 
cheerman,  '  easy — easy — our  platform  backs  up  the  debt.'  '  Well  then,' 
sed  I,  in  a  rage,  '  why  in  blazis  didn't  yoo  send  me  a  copy  of  your  plat- 
form when  you  wantid  me  to  address  yoo?  Go  to  thunder  and  make 
yoor  own  speeches;'  and  I  stawked  off  the  platform.  Time  wuz  wen 
wun  speech  wood  do  a  man  awl  over  the  North,  now  yoo  hev  to  hev  a 
different  wun  fur  evry  State,  wich  makes  it  impossible  fur  me  to  travil 
fer  wun  effort  per  season  is  enuff  fur  me.'  " 


77]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  yy 

When  the  returns  came  in,  it  was  found  that  the  Union 
Party  had  strong  majorities.  Major-General  Slocum 
received  272,793  against  300,461  for  Major-General  Bar- 
low, giving  the  latter  a  27,461  majority.  The  Unionists 
received  a  vastly  increased  majority  in  the  legislature.1 
The  World  could  not  accept  defeat  without  dire 
prophecy. 

We  have  no  desire  to  count  our  wounds,  nor  to  conceal  them. 
They  are  the  witnesses  of  a  manly  struggle,  against  odds. 
Nor  would  we  conceal  their  disastrous  consequences,  not  so 
much  to  the  party,  which  will  outlive  and  outlast  and  bring 
to  the  dust  these  victors  of  to-day,  and  whose  principles  being 
true  are  imperishable,  but,  in  the  defeat  of  the  Democratic 
party,  President  Johnson's  plan  for  the  immediate  restoration 
of  the  Union  is  defeated  also.  The  tide  of  fanaticism  which 
has  swept  over  the  nation,  engulfing  its  laws,  its  liberties,  and 
its  material  prosperity,  though  visibly  abating,  has  not  yet 
reached  its  ebb.  Every  hour  it  falls,  and  the  time  cannot  be 
far  distant  when  the  people  of  the  North,  so  long  led  through 
deep  waters  by  blind  guides,  will  search  for  dry  land  and 
other  leaders.  That  day  will  see  the  triumph  of  Democratic 
principles  and  of  those  who  have  faithfully  upheld  them.' 

Greeley  complacently  interpreted  the  Union  victory  to 
mean  that  "  the  people  want  our  internal  differences  so 
settled  that  they  can  never  return  to  trouble  the  nation's 
peace/'3     "  If  they  were  honest  in  pretending  to  support 

'Tribune  Almanac,  1866,  p.  62;  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  8-9,  1865; 
New  York  World,  Nov.  8-9,  1865;  Appleton's  Ann.  Cyc,  1865,  p.  515: 

Senate.        House.        Joint  Ballot. 

Unionists 27  89  116 

Democrats     .......         5  -  39  44 

Unionist  majority  ....    22  50  72 

5  New  York  World,  Nov.  8,  1865. 
'New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  9,  1865. 


jg  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [78 

the  President,  they  can  give  that  support  out  of  office  as 
well  as  in,"  ■  was  the  consolation  offered  to  the  Demo- 
crats by  Raymond.  Ellis  H.  Roberts  believed  that  Presi- 
dent Johnson  would  stand  by  "  the  voice  of  the  people 
just  uttered/' 2  but  he  did  not  know  whereof  he  spoke. 
To  William  Stuart  the  Union  victory  meant  that  the 
young  men  of  the  State  and  the  boys  in  blue  had  lost 
faith  in  the  promises  of  Democracy3  or,  as  the  Ogdens- 
burg  Daily  Journal  put  it,  "  neither  the  people  nor  the 
soldiers  can  be  allured  into  the  support  of  a  soldier  who 
will  suffer  his  name  to  be  used  to  revive  the  fortunes  of 
Copperhead  politicians."  4  The  Rochester  Daily  Demo- 
crat diagnosed  the  case  as  follows:  "Besides  its  disloyalty 
.  .  .  the  Democracy  in  this  last  campaign  had  to  carry  the 
burden  of  a  hypocrisy  so  transparent  as  to  be  visible  to 
the  dullest  observation  and  so  gross  as  to  disgust  even 
the  hardened  politicians."  The  Albany  Evening  Journal 
was  the  most  far-sighted  in  its  vision  of  the  results  of  the 
Democratic  defeat.  The  Evening  Journal  believed  the 
six  following  points  settled:  1.  the  Democratic  defeat 
established  the  fate  of  the  northern  secessionists,  2.  the 
election  pronounced  the  terms  upon  which  the  work  of 
reorganization  must  proceed,  3.  it  disposed  of  at  once 
and  forever  the  outcry  against  the  public  debt,  4.  it  gave 
a  substantial  endorsement  to  the  national  administration, 
5.  it  secured  a  firm  and  decided  course  on  the  part  of  the 
majority  in  Congress,  6.  and,  lastly,  it  proved  to  the 
world  the  stability  of  republican  institutions.5 

Among    the   up-State    Democratic   papers,   with    one 

1  New  York  Times,  Nov.  8,  1865. 

*  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Nov.  9,  1865. 

8  Binghamton  Daily  Republican,  Nov.  10,  1865. 

4  Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal,  Nov.  XI,  1865. 

6  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Nov.  8,  1865. 


79]  PARTY  POLITICS  DURING  1865  yg 

prominent  exception,  a  disposition  was  manifested  to 
"  accept  the  result  with  patience  and  magnanimity." x 
The  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser  of  Rochester  had  made 
its  plea  for  organization  all  through  the  campaign,  and 
to  lack  of  such  it  attributed  its  party  defeat.2  The  Utica 
Daily  Observer  saw  Johnson  already  in  the  power  of 
Congress.3  But  it  remained  for  Mr.  Halstead,  of  the 
Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union ,  to  explain  the 
method  by  which  Horace  Greeley  was  able  to  defeat 
Democracy. 

His  troops  all  over  the  State  wheeled  into  line,  and  plan  of 
attack  was  matured  .  .  .  issues  disregarded  .  .  .  the  ins  drilled 
.  .  .  the  outs  promised  .  .  .  the  employee  threatened  .  .  .  the 
corrupt  bribed  .  .  .  the  timid  intimidated  .  .  .  the  boards  of 
inspectors  instructed,  betting  resorted  to  .  .  .  bond  holders 
marshalled,  and  the  money  bags  scattered  around  the  polls 
.  .  .  hence  the  Democracy  crushed.4 

The  question  naturally  presents  itself  in  ending  a  study 
of  the  campaign  of  1865 — what  were  the  causes  for  this 
era  of  petty  politics?  No  great  question  of  national 
politics  arose,  outside  of  the  President's  policy.  The 
Unionists  and  the  disciples  of  Seymour  guaranteed  the 
payment  of  the  national  debt.  The  more  delicate  prob- 
lems of  Reconstruction  were  only  just  beginning  to 
come  upon  the  national  horizon.  President  Johnson 
had  not  yet  divorced  his  party.  The  questions  of  inter- 
national relations  resulting  from  the  Rebellion  were  not 
then  clearly  understood  by  the  masses.  With  the  above 
questions  not  actively  before  the  public,  with   popular 

1  Albany  Argus,  Nov.  8,  1865. 

2  Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  Nov.  8,  1865. 
8  Utica  Daily  Observer,  Nov.  8,  1865. 

4  Syracuse  Courier  and  Union,  Nov.  9,  1865. 


go  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [80 

soldiers  on  each  ticket,  with  no  specific  matter  of  legis- 
lative venality  or  party  mal-administration  to  inflame  the 
public,  and  with  the  mental  reaction  setting  in  after  four 
years  of  tension  over  the  most  vital  of  national  prob- 
lems, it  does  not  appear  so  strange  that  the  arts  of  the 
ward  heeler  were  requisitioned  to  stimulate  a  false  inter- 
est in  the  campaign  to  the  detriment  of  brave  men's 
characters. 


CHAPTER  IV 
Attitude  of  New  York   Towards   Reconstruction 

The  party  platforms  of  New  York  for  1866  very  clearly 
reflected  the  movements  in  national  politics.  We  may 
simply  suggest  these  movements  as  a  background  for 
the  political  situation  in  New  York  in  1866.  Under  the 
leadership  of  Charles  Sumner,  of  Massachusetts,  and 
Thaddeus  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania,  the  Radical  Repub- 
licans shortly  after  the  opening  of  the  first  session  of 
the  Thirty- Ninth  Congress  were  at  war  with  the  Presi- 
dent over  reconstruction  measures. 

As  an  immediate  result  of  the  President's  veto T  of  the 
bill  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  Freedman's  Bureau,2 
Johnson  disgraced  himself  in  his  famous  White  House 
speech  of  February  22nd.3  The  tide  of  public  feeling 
against  Johnson  rose  so  rapidly  that  upon  his  veto  of  the 
Civil  Rights  Bill,  the  Senate  repassed  it  with  the  neces- 
sary two-thirds  vote  on  April  6th ;  the  House  doing  so 
three  days  later.4     Parallel  with  the  action  of  Congress 

1  While  Johnson  proved  obstinate  in  his  course,  it  is  believed  that,  at 
first,  he  was  influenced  directly  by  Seward,  the  Blairs,  and  Preston 
King,  late  Senator  of  New  York.  Works  of  Charles  Sumner,  vol.  xi, 
p.  18.  Blaine,  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  ii,  pp.  66-108.  Rhodes, 
vol.  ii,  p.  447;  vol.  v,  p.  588. 

'Reported  by  Senator  Trumbull,  of  Illinois,  on  Jan.  11,  1866.  The 
Freedman's  Bureau  was  originally  established  by  an  act  of  March  3, 
1865,  approved  by  Lincoln. 

3  Appleton's  Ann.  Cyclopedia,  1866. 

*  Globe,  pt.  iv,  1st  Sess.,  39th  Cong.,  p.  535. 

81]  81 


82  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [82 

on  the  Civil  Rights  Bill,  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  had 
its  inception,  January  31,  1866,  in  the  form  of  a  report 
by  Stevens  to  the  House  on  a  proposed  Constitutional 
Amendment  which  at  length  passed  the  Senate,  June  8th, 
and  the  House  five  days  later.1  Tennessee,  upon  her 
acceptance  of  the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ments, after  having  declared  the  Ordinance  of  Secession 
and  the  war  debt  void,  was  restored  to  her  former  place 
in  the  Union.2 

Attention  is  now  directed  to  the  central  political 
motif  in  the  politics  of  1866,  namely,  the  concerted 
movement  to  organize  a  new  party  on  the  platform  of 
Johnson's  policy.  National  expression  was  given  to 
this  movement,  shortly  after  the  passage  of  the  Civil 
Rights  Bill,  in  the  plan  for  the  National  Union  Conven- 
tion held  at  Philadelphia  on  August  14,  1866.3  The  aim 
of  the  convention  was  to  join  conservative  Republicans 
and  Democrats  in  the  North  with  the  moderate  men  of 
the  South.4  With  the  exception  of  Arizona,  Montana 
and  Utah,  every  State  and  Territory  was  represented. 
General  John  A.  Dix,  of  New  York,  was  chosen  for 
temporary  chairman,  and  Senator  James  R.  Doolittle, 
of  Wisconsin,  for  president  of  the  convention.  A  great 
display  of  amiability  was  made  in  various  ways  between 

1  Globe,  pt.  iv,  1st  Sess.,  39th  Cong.,  p.  535. 

2 Ibid.,   1895,  p.  4007. 

3  The  Convention  was  held  in  a  huge  wigwam  with  a  seating  capacity 
of  15,000. 

4F.  W.  Seward,  William  H.  Seward,  an  Autobiography  (New  York, 
1891),  vol.  iii,  p.  339.  The  Southern  delegates  belonged  to  the  mod- 
erate class  for  the  most  part.  That  is,  those  who  had  not  stood  for 
secession  originally,  but  had  decided  to  stand  by  their  States.  When 
they  came  together,  Raymond  remarked  that  "the  general  feeling  was 
one  of  delight  at  renewing  former  political,  social  and  personal  relations 
with  the  men  of  the  north." 


83 ]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  83 

men  who,  and  sections  which,  had  been  notoriously  at 
enmity.1 

The  Democrats  in  the  Philadelphia  Convention  realized 
the  necessity  for  a  conciliatory  attitude  toward  the  Re- 
publicans in  order  to  win  the  fall  election.  Hence  two 
of  the  most  noted  Copperheads,  Fernando  Wood  2  and 
Vallandigham,  who  had  been  accredited  as  delegates, 
were  asked  to  withdraw.  The  leaders  saw  that,  if  seated, 
they  would  tinge  the  convention  with  a  Copperhead  hue 
and  the  convention  would  go  for  naught.  Both  with- 
drew, when  the  situation  was  explained,  Wood  grace- 
fully, Vallandigham  not  until  pressure  was  used. 

The  Philadelphia  Convention  was  directed  largely  by 
the  New  York  triumvirate,  William  H.  Seward,  Thurlow 
Weed  and  Henry  J.  Raymond ;  the  latter  a  doubting 
Thomas  as  to  the  wisdom  of  such  a  convention.  Ray- 
mond was  first  approached  in  regard  to  the  convention 
by  Thurlow  Weed.  Shortly  after,  the  call  for  a  conven- 
tion appeared  in  the  newspapers.  It  was  signed  "  by  a 
joint  committee  composed  of  members  of  the  Johnson 
Committee  and  of  the  Democratic  Committee."  Nat- 
urally a  call  so  signed  caused  distrust  to  arise  in  the 
North  and  in  Congress.  Several  days  later  Seward  met 
Raymond  and  casually  remarked  that  it  was  understood 
that  Raymond  "would  write  the  address."  To  clinch 
Raymond   in   its   favor   Seward  took  him  in  to  see   the 

1  Nast  has  a  caricature  in  Harper  s  Weekly  of  the  northern  and  south- 
ern delegates  walking  into  the  convention  arm  in  arm,  uttering  such 
sentiments  as  "  Charity  covereth  all,"  "  Oh,  blessed  hour,"  etc.  They 
are  accompanied  by  a  dog  and  a  cat,  arm  in  arm,  also  a  cat  and  a  rat, 
arm  in  arm.  Harper's  Weekly,  Sept.  1,  1866.  Cf.  also,  The  Nation, 
Aug.  23,  1866,  p.  152.     New  York  World,  Aug.  14-15,  1866. 

2  New  York  Herald,  Aug.  13,  1866.  New  York  World,  Aug.  14-15, 
1866.  Wood  wrote  a  letter  at  the  first  suggestion  that  he  was  unwel- 
come, in  which  he  claimed  that  he  had  the  welfare  of  the  Union  and 
the  convention  at  heart. 


84  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE        [84 

President.  Johnson  said  he  "wanted  Congress  to  re- 
store the  Union  "  and  to  "  have  this  matter  settled  within 
the  Union  Party. "  He  thought  that  it  would  be  a  great 
step  gained  "  and  that  it  would  have  a  salutary  effect  on 
public  sentiment."  x  The  President's  wish  was  granted 
in  so  far  as  the  convention  was  able,  for  the  resolutions 
were  an  emphatic  endorsement  of  Johnson's  policy. 

It  would  have  been  well  for  Raymond  had  his  doubts 
kept  him  from  participation  in  the  convention,  as  he 
proved  the  first  victim  of  this  attempt  to  found  a  new 
party  on  Johnson's  policy.  The  address  made  by  Ray- 
mond, in  spite  of  the  great  enthusiasm  with  which  the 
convention  received  it,  proved  his  political  Waterloo.2 
The  address  did  not  aid  the  President,  while  it  sounded 
Raymond's  political  death-knell.3     From   this  time,  his 

*F.  W.  Seward,  Seward,  op.  cit.,  pp.  337-338. 

"New  York  World,  Aug.  17,  1866.  Maverick,  Raymond  and  New 
York  Journalism  (Hartford,  Conn.,  1870),  p.  172.  The  points  Ray- 
mond made  in  his  address  follow:  1.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the 
war  is  ended  and  that  the  nation  is  at  peace.  2.  He  argued  for  the  ne- 
cessity of  accepting  the  legitimate  political  consequences  of  the  war, 
and  (3)  insisted  on  the  importance  of  accurately  understanding  the  real 
character  of  the  war.  4.  It  was  declared  that  the  United  States  Con- 
stitution remained  exactly  the  same  as  before  the  war;  and  that  only 
since  the  war  had  ceased  that  "the  right  of  conquest  and  confiscation, 
the  right  to  abrogate  all  existing  governments,  institutions  and  laws, 
and  to  subject  the  territory  conquered  and  its  inhabitants  to  such  laws, 
regulations,  and  deprivations  as  the  legislative  department  of  the  gov- 
ernment may  see  fit  to  impose;  had  been  urged  in  favor  of  one  depart- 
ment of  the  General  Government."  5.  Lastly,  he  gave  an  elaborate 
argument  against  Congress  for  its  opposition  to  the  President.  He 
made  the  point,  that  it  was  unjust  to  refuse  to  ten  states  a  representative 
in  Congress,  because  those  states  were  not  in  rebellion,  but  were  one 
and  all  "in  an  attitude  of  loyalty  towards  the  government  and  of  sworn 
allegiance  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States." 

3  Harper' s  Weekly,  which  belittled  the  results  of  the  Philadelphia 
Convention,  said  of  Mr.  Raymond's  address,  that  "  it  contains  nothing 
new,  and  states  nothing  old  with  new  force."  Harper's  Weekly,  Sept. 
1,  1866,  p.  546. 


85]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  85 

name  was  dropped  as  one  of  the  Republican  leaders. 
His  pleasant  associations  with  them  ceased.  Shortly 
afterward,  an  unauthorized  meeting  of  the  Radicals  on 
the  Republican  National  Committee  was  called  at  Phila- 
delphia ;  these  "  bolters  "  removed  him  from  the  chair- 
manship.1 This  action  was  approved  by  the  next  State 
Convention.2  Subsequent  to  the  informal  call  for  a 
meeting  at  Philadelphia,  Raymond,  as  chairman,  issued 
a  formal  call  for  a  meeting  at  the  Astor  House.3  Gov- 
ernor Ward,  of  New  Jersey,  presuming  on  his  promi- 
nence, essayed  to  answer  Raymond's  call  in  a  public 
letter,  in  which  he  stated  that  Raymond  had  forfeited 
the  chairmanship  because  of  his  political  apostasy.  To 
this  Raymond  issued  a  civilly  contemptuous  reply,  stat- 
ing that  he  had  no  desire  to  hold  the  chairmanship 
against  the  wishes  of  its  members.  Only  seven  attended 
the  meeting  at  the  Astor  House.4  Raymond  soon  real- 
ized his  false  move  and  endeavored  to  retrieve  it,  but 
was  never  able  to  rehabilitate  himself  in  his  former 
political  station.5  At  this  day,  when  the  bitter  feeling  of 
the  Reconstruction  period  is  largely  allayed,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  what  there  was  in  Raymond's  speech  that  so  com- 
pletely shut  him  from  his  party. 

Another  difficulty  beset  Raymond's  pathway,  as  he 
was  accused  of  having  turned  Copperhead.  This  accusa- 
tion was  set  at  rest  by  a  letter6  which  he  had  written  to 
Ransom  Balcom,  of  Binghamton,  on  July  17,  1866,  be- 

1  New  York  Times,  Sept.  8,  1866.  New  York  World,  Sept.  4,  1866. 
He  was  later  removed  from  the  committee. 

'New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  6,  1866.  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  6, 
1866. 

8  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  4,  1866. 

4  New  York  World,  Aug.  31,  1866. 

5  New  York  World,  Sept.  28,  1866. 

*  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Oct.  8,  1866. 


86  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [86 

fore  the  Philadelphia  Convention.  He  wrote :  "  I  think 
it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  Philadelphia  Convention  may 
have  a  wholesome  influence  on  our  State  Convention  and 
make  it  somewhat  more  moderate  than  it  would  be  other- 
wise. But  it  is  not  likely  to  disturb  the  integrity  or  the 
ascendency  of  the  Union  Party."  1  Raymond,  at  length 
awakening  to  a  full  recognition  of  Johnson's  character, 
issued  this  statement:  ''We  have  tried  very  hard  to  hold 
our  original  faith  in  his  personal  honesty,  and  to  attribute 
his  disastrous  action  to  errors  of  judgment  and  infirmities 
of  temper.  The  struggle  has  often  been  difficult,  and  we 
maintain  it  no  longer."2  Mr.  Raymond  served  but  one 
term  in  Congress.  He  was  offered  the  renomination  in 
September  of  1866  by  the  Conservative  Republicans,  the 
names  of  a  long  list  of  prominent  citizens  appearing  upon 
the  petition,  but  the  nomination  was  refused.  Raymond 
gave  his  reasons  for  declining  the  nomination  in  a  strong, 
dignified  justification  of  himself  and  his  attitude  in  Con- 
gress.3 Horace  Greeley,  who  in  1866  represented  the 
extreme  Northern  sentiment,  and  whose  paper,  the  Trib- 
une, was  the  mouthpiece  of  the  party  which  cast  out 
Raymond,  took  occasion  to  write  a  caustic  editorial  on 
Raymond's  letter  of  declination.4  The  World  in  a  critical 
article  was  inclined  to  censure  Raymond  for  his  unstable 
position  in  the  attempt  to  prove  his  true  Republicanism.5 
Among  his  editorial  colleagues  throughout  the  State, 
Raymond  found  no  sympathy.6 

1  Cf.  Maverick,  Raymond,  pp.  173,  190.  lIbid.,  p.  174. 

3  New  York  Times,  Sept.  27,  1866.     Maverick,  p.  190. 
*  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  28,  1866. 

5  New  York  World,  Sept.  28,  1866.  Binghampton  Daily  Republican, 
Sept.  29,  1866. 

6  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  28,  1866.  Carroll  E.  Smith  re- 
marked: M  His  Congressional  career  had  been  neither  brilliant  nor  use- 
ful enough  to  make  his  re-election  a  thing  to  be  desired." 


87]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  87 

The  movement  to  organize  a  new  party  on  the  platform 
of  Johnson's  policy  failed  to  produce  the  results  which 
were  expected  from  it.  This  caused  President  Johnson 
to  tour  the  country  in  order  to  turn  the  Congressional 
elections  in  his  favor.  The  occasion  for  the  tour  was  the 
laying  of  a  cornerstone  at  Chicago,  September  5,  1866, 
for  a  memorial  to  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  The  trip  was 
jocularly  called  "  swinging-a-round-the-circle."  l  The 
Presidential  party  created  but  little  unfavorable  comment 
in  the  East,2  and  the  crowds  were  not  especially  dis- 
courteous, but  in  the  western  cities  the  throng  had  little 
respect.  At  Cleveland  and  other  places  in  the  West, 
Johnson,  stinging  under  the  charge  of  traitor  to  his 
party,  duplicated  his  unfortunate  address  of  February 
22nd,  even  condescending  to  maudlin  repartee  with  the 
crowd.3  At  St.  Louis,  Johnson  capped  the  climax  of 
his  journey  when  he  accused  the  Unionists  in  Congress 
of  having  practically  planned  the  New  Orleans  massacre.4 
He  also  indulged  in  a  muddled  invective  about  Judas, 
Christ  and  Moses.5  Even  while  the  tour  was  in  pro- 
gress the  press  and  various  public  bodies  expressed  dis- 
approbation.6 The  President  returned  a  discomfited  and 
defeated  man. 

The  second  noteworthy  victim  of  the  President's  at- 
tempt to  organize  a  new  party  with  his  policy  as  a  plat- 

1  James  Russell  Lowell,  Political  Essays,  p.  206,  speaks  of  it  as  an 
u  advertising  tour  of  a  policy  in  want  of  a  party." 

*  New  York  Tribune,  Aug.  29,  1866.  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  4, 
1866. 

8 McPherson,  op.  cit.,  pp.  134-6.  Pierce,  Sumner,  vol.  iv,  p.  299. 
Schurz,  Carl,  The  Reminiscences  of  (New  York,  1905),  vol.  iii,  p.  243. 
Petroleum  V.  Nasby,  Swinging  round  the  cirkle  (Boston,  1867),  p.  89. 

*  See  Applelon's  Ann.  Cyc,  1866,  pp.  454-6. 
5  See  McPherson,  pp.  136-140. 

•New  York  Times,  Sept.  7,  1866.     New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  8, 1866. 


SR          POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [88 

form  was  Seward,  a  man  who  deserved  much  from  the 
Republican  Party.  Seward  remained  faithful  to  his  chief 
and  to  the  policy  which  Seward  had  done  so  much  to 
forward.  He  considered  it  his  duty  to  attend  the  Presi- 
dent upon  his  tour,  though  he  shrank  from  its  "  excite- 
ments and  fatigues." "  As  a  result,  after  the  ill-fated  trip 
"  to  eulogize  Douglas  and  exhibit  Johnson," 2  Seward 
received  ridicule  and  reproach  from  all  sides,3  but  he  had 
not  parted  from  his  principles.  He  was  largely  the  vic- 
tim of  circumstances  in  that  he  believed  it  his  duty,  in 
addition  to  his  ambition,  to  control  international  rela- 
tions, as  well  as  to  help  defend  a  policy  in  the  inception 
of  which  he  had  aided.4  Seward  absolutely  refused  to 
defend  himself  against  the  charges  of  his  enemies.5  It  is 
considered  by  his  biographers  that  Seward  has  been  too 
severely  condemned  for  his  part  in  Reconstruction,  espe- 
cially when  one  considers  the  fact  that  he  had  no  essen- 
tial responsibility  for  the  President's  acts. 

Before  going  further  it  is  necessary  to  explain  the 
bewildering  political  terminology  which  existed  in  1866, 
due  to  the  break-up  of  old  party  lines  as  expressed  in  the 
Philadelphia  Convention,  and  to  state  the  plan  which  will 
be  followed  in  the  use  of  these  names.  Republicans  were 
often  referred  to  as  Unionists  or  Union  Republicans,  i.  e. 
those  Republicans  who  had  stood  for  Union  throughout 
the  Civil  War;  as  Radicals,  i.  e.  those  Republicans  who 
desired   to   impose   severe   conditions  on  the   Southern 

*F.  W.  Seward,  Seward,  vol.  iii,  p.  339. 

1  Bancroft,  Life  of  Seward  (New  York,  1900),  vol.  ii,  p.  462. 

3  Lowell,  Political  Essays,  p.  290.  Pierce,  Sumner,  vol.  iv,  p.  300. 
The  Nation,  Sept.  20,  1866,  vol.  iii,  p.  234.  Harper  s  Weekly,  Sept. 
22,  1866,  p.  594. 

*  Bancroft,  Seward,  op.  cit.,  p.  436. 

6 /did.,  vol.  iii.     Letter  of  Oct.  8,  1866. 


Sg]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  8q 

States  preliminary  to  their  re-entering  the  Union ;  and 
as  Conservatives,  or  Conservative  Unionists,  i.  e.  those 
Republicans  who,  contrasted  with  the  Radicals,  believed 
that  a  conciliatory  course  should  be  taken  relative  to 
Reconstruction.  As  the  Radical  wing  of  the  Republican 
Party  dominated  the  party  councils  up  to  1868,  the 
Republicans  were  more  frequently  referred  to  as  Rad- 
icals, although  the  editorial  writers  were  generally  laps- 
ing back  to  the  term  Republicans  as  early  as  1866. 
When  in  1868  the  Conservative  element  succeeded  in 
counteracting  the  influence  of  the  Radical  wing  of  the 
Republican  Party,  the  term  Union,  which  was  no  longer 
needed,  was  dropped.1  The  Democratic  terminology  did 
not  lead  into  such  a  maze.  In  this  period  the  term 
Democrat  was  in  general  use.  Nevertheless  one  finds 
reference  to  Copperheads,  i.  e.  northern  Democrats  who 
opposed  the  War;  and  War  Democrats,  i.  e.  Democrats 
who  joined  with  the  Union  Party  to  put  down  the 
Rebellion. 

To  avoid  confusion  in  the  following  pages  the  term 
Republicans  will  be  used  to  designate  both  factions  in  the 
party  when  in  contrast  with  the  Democrats.  If  it  is  found 
necessary  to  differentiate  between  Republicans,  the  terms 
Radical  and  Conservative  will  be  used  with  the  above 
meanings.  There  were,  of  course,  Democrats  who  were 
radical  in  their  opinions  and  those  who  were  conserva- 
tive. But  whether  radically  or  conservatively  inclined, 
the  matter  was  personal  rather  than  factional.  Hence 
the  term  Democrat  will  be  used  without  differentiation, 
except  where  it  is  necessary  to  refer  to  Copperheads  or 
War  Democrats. 

As  the  Philadelphia  Convention  was  the  national  ex- 

1  Cf.  supra,  pp.  55-56,  footnote  6. 


9G  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [90 

pression  of  the  movement  to  organize  a  new  party  on 
the  platform  of  the  President's  policy,  so  the  preliminary 
State  convention  of  the  Conservatives  and  Democrats  of 
New  York,  held1  at  Saratoga  previous  to  the  Philadelphia 
Convention,  was  the  first  State  expression  of  the  move- 
ment. The  Convention,  at  which  the  Democratic  and 
Conservative  elements  were  about  evenly  divided,2  was 
largely  attended.3  Homer  A.  Nelson  was  elected  tem- 
porary chairman,  while  the  forces  of  Thurlow  Weed 
dominated  the  meeting.4  The  purpose  of  the  conven- 
tion was  to  unite  sentiment  and  select  delegates  to  the 
Philadelphia  Convention.  On  the  whole  the  convention 
was  harmonious,  with  the  exception  of  considerable  con- 
fusion caused  by  the  claims  of  two  rival  sets  of  delegates 
from  Kings  and  Westchester  counties.5  An  attempt  was 
made  by  Mr.  E.  O.  Perrin  to  force  the  New  York  dele- 
gation to  vote  at  Philadelphia  as  a  unit,  but  his  motion 
was  tabled.  In  addition  to  the  district  delegates,  eight 
delegates-at-large  were  appointed  to  the  Philadelphia 
Convention,  including  John  A.  Dix,  Henry  J.  Raymond, 
Samuel  J.  Tilden  and  Sanford  E.  Church.6  The  resolu- 
tions of  the  Saratoga  Convention  were  brief,  but  em- 
phatic.    They  fully  endorsed  the  President's  policy,  and 

1  The  convention  met  on  Aug.  9,  1866. 

'The  Tribune  claimed  that  the  Democrats  greatly  outnumbered  those 
of  Republican  antecedents.  This,  however,  was  stated  just  contrariwise 
by  the  World.  New  York  Tribune,  Aug.  10,  1866.  New  York  World, 
Aug.  10,  1866. 

3  Six  hundred  delegates  were  present. 

*New  York  Tribune,  Aug.  10,  1866. 

3  The  difficulty  was  settled  by  a  tacit  understanding  that  in  case  of 
contest  both  sets  of  returns  would  be  admitted.  New  York  Herald, 
Aug.  10,  1866. 

6  New  York  World,  Aug.  10,  1866.  The  other  delegates-at-large 
were  Charles  G.  Myers,  H.  L.  Comstock,  William  Kelly,  and  Hiram 
Denis. 


9l]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  gi 

decried  the  action  of  Congress.1  The  fact  that  they 
expressed  joy  at  the  restoration  of  Tennessee,  which  was 
a  Congressional  act,  would  seem  to  be  inconsistent. 

The  Philadelphia  Convention  was  the  most  important 
of  the  four  national  conventions  held  in  the  summer 
and  fall  of  1866.2  The  election  for  Representatives  and 
the  control  of  the  various  State  legislatures  assumed 
the  character  of  a  national  election.  The  Republicans 
of  New  York  were  the  first  to  select  candidates  for  the 
fall  election.3  The  convention  which  was  held  at  Syra- 
cuse, September  5,  1866,  was  remarkable  for  its  "sin- 
gular harmony  and  enthusiasm."4     A  contest  took  place 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Aug.  10,  1866. 

*  A  second  convention  was  held  in  Philadelphia  on  Sept.  3,  1866,  by 
the  Radicals  and  Southern  Loyalists.  Although  one  should  be  cautious 
in  accepting  the  Herald's  statement,  it  is  interesting  to  note  its  com- 
ment. The  Herald  called  it  "The  Nigger-Worshippers  Convention," 
and  said  that  "such  an  aggregation  of  the  freaks  of  nature,  physically 
and  mentally,  in  the  shape  of  humanity,  was  never  seen  before."  New 
York  Herald,  Sept.  4-7,  1866.  The  New  York  World,  Sept.  4-7,  1866, 
was  equally  severe  on  "The  Bogus  Southern  Convention."  However, 
Harper's  Weekly  and  the  Independent  were  outspoken  in  their  praise  of 
the  Southern  Loyalist  Convention.  Harper's  Weekly,  Sept.  22,  1866. 
The  Independent,  Sept.  13,  20,  1866.  The  so-called  Johnson  Soldiers' 
Convention  was  held  at  Cleveland  on  Sept.  17,  1866.  The  Nation, 
Sept.  20,  1866,  p.  221:  "Cleveland  seems  to  have  given  the  Military 
Johnson  Convention,  even  a  colder  reception  than  Philadelphia  gave  its 
greater  prototype,  the  Convention  of  the  14th  of  August  .  .  .  The  prom- 
inent men  are  Gen.  Custer,  Gen.  Steedman  and  Gen.  Gordon  Granger. 
The  Convention  contains  many  men  who  '  didn't  go  into  this  war  to 
•  free  the  nigger,'  many  who  'always  found  the  Southerners  they  met  to 
be  perfect  Gentlemen  '  .  .  .  and  very  many  men  who,  to  tell  the  plain 
truth,  are  shameless  and  unprincipled  office  hunters  and  bad  specimens 
of  our  worst  class  of  politicians,  men  whom  politics  took  into  the  army 
and  who  now  seek  to  trade  upon  their  uniforms."  To  counteract  the 
effect  of  the  Cleveland  Convention/  a  Radical  Soldiers'  and  Sailors' 
Convention  was  held  at  Pittsburg,  which  the  World  characterized  as 
"  A  Feast  of  Buncombe  and  a  Flow  of  Bile."  New  York  World,  Sept. 
26 »  l866-  3  New  York  Times,  Sept.  5-6,  1866. 

*  Harper 's  Weekly,  Sept.  22,  1866,  p.  594.    The  meeting  was  held  in 


92  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [g2 

over  the  choice  of  the  temporary  chairman.  Charles  H. 
Van  Wyck  was  selected,  at  length,  over  Lyman  Tremaine. 
The  latter,  however,  was  chosen  as  permanent  president 
of  the  convention.  Horace  Greeley  was  the  leading 
spirit.  The  Times  spoke  of  him  as  "the  chief  engineer, 
who  apparently  intends  to  run  the  machine  on  his  own 
hook."  ■  The  great  bone  of  contention  among  the  dele- 
gates was  not  the  question  of  Federal  Reconstruction, 
but  the  reconstruction  of  the  State  ticket.  The  middle 
and  western  portions  of  the  State  urged  the  renomina- 
tion  of  the  old  ticket,  while  the  eastern  and  New  York 
delegations  demanded  a  change.  Senator  Ezra  Cornell 
was  the  only  candidate  for  Governor  Fenton's  position. 
He,  however,  gracefully  withdrew  on  learning  that  the 
majority  were  in  favor  of  Fenton.2  In  connection  with 
the  nominations  for  lieutenant-governor,  land  com- 
missioner, and  state  prison  inspector,  there  was  a  loud 
clamor  for  new  men.3  This  demand  for  new  men  was 
based,  not  only  on  the  ground  that  it  would  strengthen 
the  ticket,  but  also  that  the  present  ticket  was  sectional, 

Weiting  Hall,  which  was  decorated  with  various  caricatures.     On  the 
left  of  the  platform  was  a  caricature  of  Johnson  by  Nast;  the  President 
was  seated  with  one  eye  turned   malignantly  upon  the  Convention, 
while  the  other  was  watching  the  pardons  as  they  flew  from  his  hands. 
New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  6,  1866.     The  ticket  was  as  follows: 
Governor — Reuben  E.  Fenton,  Chautauqua. 
Lieut. -Governor— Stewart  L.  Woodford,  Kings. 
Canal  Commissioner — Stephen  T.  Hoyt,  Steuben. 
Prison  Inspector— John  Hammond,  Essex. 

New  York  Herald,  Sept.  6,  1866. 
"The  Loyal  League"  held  a  Convention  in  Syracuse  on  the  same 
day  as  the  Republicans.  This  meeting  was  addressed  by  Lieut. -Gov- 
ernor Alvord  and  others.  It  exerted  a  strong  influence  in  favor  of  the 
renomination  of  Reuben  Fenton  and  Alvord.  New  York  Times,  Sept. 
5,  1866.  1  New  York  Times,  Sept.  5,  1866. 

8  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  6,  1866. 
3  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  6,  1866. 


93]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  93 

excluding  the  southern  counties  and  New  York  City. 
This  demand  was  pointedly  followed  by  the  westerners' 
retort  that  the  southern  counties  never  gave  majorities 
for  the  ticket.  Considerable  feeling  was  displayed  over 
the  dropping  of  Lieutenant-Governor  Alvord,  of  Syra- 
cuse, for  General  Stewart  L.  Woodford,1  of  Kings  county. 
Mr.  Andrews,  of  Onondaga,  urged  the  renomination  of 
the  former  on  the  ground  that  he  came  from  "  one  of  the 
seats  of  power  of  the  Republican  party ; 2  and  that  he 
should  not  be  discriminated  against  when  Governor 
Fenton  had  received  such  unanimous  support.  William 
A.  Wheeler,  of  Franklin,  who  later  became  Vice-Presi- 
dent, was  also  suggested  for  lieutenant-governor,  but 
his  name  was  withdrawn.  General  Woodford  was  a 
young  politician,  rising  in  the  party's  favor  because  of 
his  oratorical  ability.  He  was  supported  by  the  entire 
New  York  and  Brooklyn  delegations,  being  the  choice 
of  the  western  delegates  second  to  Alvord.3 

1  Encyclopedia  of  Contemporary  Biography  of  New  York,  pp.  106-9. 
Spoke  of  him  as  a  brave  soldier  and  capable  lawyer. 

'New  York  Times,  Sept.  5,  1866.  "They  do  not  disguise  the  fact 
that  they  want  him  on  the  ticket  mainly  for  his  oratorical  powers  in 
stumping  the  State." 

8  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  6,  1866.     The  Republican  State  Central 
Committee  was  appointed  as  follows: 
1st  District— W.  H.  Gleason.  16th  District— John  McDowell. 


2d 

« « 

Charles  W.  Godard. 

17th 

Fred.  Julian. 

3d 

11 

Horatio  N.  Holt. 

18th 

James  A.  Bell. 

4th 

1 1 

Joshua  G.  Abbe. 

19th 

Chas.  H.  Hopkins. 

5th 

1  < 

Wm.  H.  McKinney, 

.  20th 

S.  H.  Conklin. 

6th 

U 

Isaac  Danton. 

21st 

Frank  Hiscock. 

7th 

< « 

Martin  B.  Brown. 

22d 

S.  G.  Hardly. 

8th 

<  < 

Waldo  Hutchins. 

23d 

Isaac  L.  Endross. 

9th 

« < 

Amos  J.  Williamson, 

,  24th        " 

A.  B.  Cornell. 

10th 

«« 

H.  D.  Robertson. 

25th 

Chas.  G.  Fairman. 

nth 

«« 

Ezra  Farrington. 

26th 

A.  H.  King. 

1 2th 

«« 

John  Lyon. 

27th        ' 

Wm.  H.  Merrill. 

13th 

<  < 

Hamilton  Harris. 

28th 

Isaac  M.   Schermer 

14th 

<« 

John  S.  Winslow. 

horn. 

15th 

«« 

E.  A.  Merritt. 

29th 

George  W.  Palmer. 

94  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [94 

After  the  result  had  been  made  known,  the  Republican 
editors  of  the  State  journals  appear  to  have  accepted  the 
predominance  of  the  New  York  City  politicians  in  the 
convention  without  protest.  The  western  organs  which 
had  been  loudest  for  the  nomination  of  men  from  the 
central  and  western  portions  of  the  State,  like  well- 
trained  soldiers,  fell  meekly  into  line,  praising  the  virtues 
of  the  new  candidates.  The  Syracuse  Daily  Standard 
cites  the  clever  exhibition  of  sacrifice  on  the  altar  of 
party,  which  Lieutenant-Governor  Alvord  made,  as  an 
evidence  of  Republican  loyalty.  "  I  am  delighted,"  said 
Alvord,  "  to  lay  my  personal  ambitions  on  the  altar  of 
my  country  and  train  in  the  ranks  as  well  as  at  the 
head." '  The  Daily  Journal,  of  Ogdensburg,  recog- 
nized "  the  will  of  the  people  " 2  in  the  nominations  at 
Syracuse.  The  up-State  Democratic  organs  were  more 
prone  to  sympathize  with  the  victims  of  the  unfeeling 
conduct  of  the  Republican  convention  in  casting  out  its 
old  loves  for  new  ones.  The  Daily  Courier,  of  Buffalo, 
believed  that  the  Republicans  had  weakened  their  ticket 
by  dropping  Alvord  and  Bruce.  It  considered  Fenton 
the  strongest  man  on  the  ticket.3  The  Albany  Argus 
believed  that  the  nomination  of  Fenton  kept  strong  men 
from  the  field.  It  eulogized  Alvord  as  follows :  "  No 
man  has  followed  his  party  with  more  cringing  subser- 
viency. He  brought  into  play  all  the  wiles  and  arts  of 
a  cunning  wirepuller,  and  was  ready  to  eat  any  amount 
of  dirt  the  political  doctors  thought  necessary  to  pre- 
scribe. Commissioner  Bruce  is  treated  in  a  similar  un- 
ceremonious manner."4 

1  Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  Sept.  7,  1866. 

2  Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  10,  1866. 

3  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Sept.  7,  1866. 
*  Albany  Argus,  Sept.  7,  1866. 


95]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  95 

The  platform,  as  predicted,  was  a  strong  Radical  doc- 
ument. "  It  is  to  be  a  platform  on  which  no  Johnson 
man  can,  by  any  possibility,  stand  upright,"  said  Charles 
Spencer.1  The  resolutions  claimed  that  "  Every  political, 
social,  and  industrial  interest  of  the  country,  as  well  as 
the  most  earnest  desire  of  every  generous  and  patriotic 
heart,  imperatively  demand  the  speediest  restoration  of 
the  Union  which  is  consistent  with  constitutional  justice 
and  national  safety."2  Asserting  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Union  and  the  nullity  of  secession,  the  statement  was 
made  that 

while  the  constitutional  authority  of  the  Federal  Government 
can  in  no  wise  be  impaired  by  the  acts  of  the  State  or  its  peo- 
ple, a  State  may,  by  rebellion  and  war  on  its  part,  or  treason 
on  the  part  of  its  inhabitants,  or  by  the  abnegation  of  its  loyal 
State  Government,  and  the  creation  and  maintenance  of  one 
alien  and  hostile  in  form,  so  far  in  fact  rupture  its  relations 
to  the  Union  as  to  suspend  its  power  to  exercise  the  right  and 
privileges  which  it  possessed  under  the  Constitution.  That 
against  such  rebelling  State,  the  Federal  Government  may 
wage  war  for  its  subjection  .  .  .  and  when  that  end  is  accom- 
plished it  belongs  to  the  legislative  power  of  the  Government 
to  determine  at  what  time  the  State  by  the  establishment  of  a 
government,  republican  in  form  under  the  Constitution,  and 
the  complete  abandonment  of  its  rebellion,  and  the  return  to 
loyalty  of  its  inhabitants,  may  safely  resume  the  exercise  of 
its  rights  and  privileges  under  the  Constitution  which  have 
been  inert  and  suspended  by  its  wrong.8 

'The  feeling  against  Johnson  and  the  Conservatives  was  very  bitter. 
"The  delegates  fairly  boil  over  with  rage.  When  asked  what  makes 
them  so  vindictive  and  abusive  in  language,  they  fly  into  a  passion  and 
reply,  'Talk  about  personal  abuse!  Who  but  Johnson  and  Seward  are 
indulging  in  abuse  ?  They,  not  we,  are  the  parties  using  abusive  epi- 
thets.' They  then  blow  out  with  all  the  epithets  they  can  form  out  of 
the  English  language,  proving  the  very  opposite  to  that  which  they 
claim."     New  York  Herald,  Sept.  6,  1866. 

'New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  6,  1866.  *  Ibid. 


96  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [96 

The  platform  denied  the  doctrines  that  the  States  while 
in  rebellion  had  kept  all  constitutional  rights  "  perfect 
and  unimpaired,"  and  were  themselves  to  judge  when 
they  were  in  proper  condition  to  resume  enjoyment  of 
those  rights.  Also  it  denied  "  that  the  President  is 
alone  sole  judge  of  the  period  when  such  suspension 
shall  be  at  an  end." 

The  convention  approved  the  Reconstruction  policy 
of  Congress.  It  declared  that  ten  Southern  States  were 
unrepresented,  because  of  their  refusal 

to  accede  to  certain  conditions  including  the  ratification  of  the 
constitutional  amendment  of  emancipation.  .  .  .  And  that 
their  claim  to  enter  Congress  before  that  change  is  acknowl- 
edged, is  a  demand  that  a  bloody  attempt  to  dissolve  the 
Union  shall  be  rewarded  with  increased  representation  of 
political  power.  That  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in 
denouncing  as  unconstitutionally  incompetent  the  Congress 
whose  lawful  authority  he  has  officially  recognized,  convicts 
himself  of  usurpation  of  power.1 

It  may  thus  be  seen  that  the  Republican  Convention  at 
Syracuse,  dominated  by  the  Radicals,  was  in  keeping 
with  the  current  in  national  politics. 

General  Barlow  showed  his  lack  of  ill-will  by  urging 
the  delegates  to  do  all  in  their  power  to  secure  the  favor 
of  the  soldiers  and  sailors,  who  were  to  meet  in  conven- 
tion on  September  21,  1866,  in  the  same  place.  With 
the  passage  of  a  motion  by  Charles  S.  Spencer,  which 
provided  for  a  preliminary  enrollment  of  Republicans  in 
the  various  assembly  districts  of  New  York  City,2  the 
convention  adjourned  sine  die. 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  6,  1866. 

2  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  6,  1866. 


97]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  gy 

The  Democrats  exulted  in  the  nomination  of  Fenton. 
The  World  said  that  "  if  the  Democratic  party  had  been 
allowed  to  select  a  candidate  for  the  Republicans,  there 
is  hardly  a  man  in  the  State  they  would  have  preferred 
to  Reuben  Fenton."  ■  As  will  be  seen,  the  Conservatives 
held  the  key  to  the  election  of  1866.  Had  the  Demo- 
crats not  alienated  the  Conservative  vote  by  apparent 
lack  of  faith,  the  prediction  of  the  World  might  have 
come  true.  "  Had  the  Syracuse  Convention  nominated 
a  man  of  higher  personal  standing  or  more  moderate 
views  there  would  have  been  some  competition  for  the 
votes  of  the  Conservative  Republicans,"  said  the  World, 
"as  it  is  they  are  sure  to  vote  the  Conservative  ticket."2 
It  would  appear  that  time  has  given  Reuben  E.  Fenton 
a  niche  somewhat  near  that  to  which  he  was  consigned 
by  the  World,  when  it  said  :  "  Mr.  Fenton  has  no  hold 
on  the  Conservative  Republicans.  None  by  superior 
abilities  and  standing,  for  in  these  respects  he  has  no 
hold  on  anybody ;  none  by  the  moderation  of  his  char- 
acter, for  he  is  a  spasmodic  Radical,  as  well  as  a  weak 
man."3 

In  keeping  with  the  attacks  of  the  radically  inclined 
Republican  papers  of  New  York  City  upon  the  President, 
their  country  cousins  were  nothing  if  not  severe  toward 
Johnson.  "  Nothing  more  is  required  to  arouse  popular 
feeling,"  said  the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  "  than  has 
already  been  done  by  the  shameful  course  of  the  Presi- 
dent and  by  the  contemptible  conduct  of  his  conservative 
followers.  All  that  is  needed  is  to  consolidate  and  direct 
the  sentiment  that  exists."4  The  Evening  Journal  de- 
clared that  the  platform  represented  "  everything  for  the 

1  New  York  World,  Sept.  7,  1866. 

7 /did.  'Ibid. 

*  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  6,  1866. 


98  POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE         [98 

cause — nothing  for  men." T  To  the  Rochester  Daily 
Democrat,  the  only  consolation  was  that  Johnson  had 
already  sunk  so  low  in  public  esteem  that  no  further 
descent  seemed  possible.2  The  Buffalo  Express  saw  in 
the  defeat3  of  "  My  Policy  "  by  the  Radicals  of  Vermont 
in  their  September  elections,  the  harbinger  of  victory 
for  the  Radicals  of  New  York.  In  the  heat  of  its  en- 
thusiasm over  the  Syracuse  platform,  the  Express  dared 
"the  worst  assaults  of  a  piebald  and  corrupt  enemy 
whose  controlling  impulse  is  plunder,  and  whose  hopes 
center  in  its  ability  to  deceive  and  cheat  the  people."4 
The  editorials  of  the  Syracuse  Daily  Journal  and  the 
Utica  Morning  Herald  were  so  in  unison  on  the  results 
of  the  Republican  convention  that  they  could  well  have 
been  written  by  the  same  hand,  rather  than  by  two 
editors,5  both  rivals  for  the  editorial  leadership  of  the 
Republican  press  up-State.  The  Utica  organ  gave  per- 
haps the  better  characterization  of  the  convention. 

The  Convention  was  strong:  in  the  character  of  its  members, 
but  stronger  still  in  the  fiery  earnestness  of  its  convictions, 
in  the  entire  harmony  of  its  deliberations,  in  the  stern  fixed- 
ness of  its  purpose  and  in  the  inspiring  confidence  of  complete 
success.  No  Convention  has  exhibited  so  much  spirit,  so 
much  vital  energy,  so  much  of  the  moral  forces  of  deep- 
wrought  and  settled  determination.6 

But  even  Mr.  Roberts  could  not  refrain  from  rebuking 
the  "  reckless  demagogism  of  Mr.  Johnson." 7 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  6,  1866. 
''Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Sept.  8,  1866. 

3  5000  Radical  majority. 

4  Buffalo  Express,  Sept.  7,  1866. 

6  Carroll  E.  Smith,  of  Syracuse  Daily  Journal. 

•Ellis  H.  Roberts,  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Sept.  7,  1866. 

'Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  6,  1866. 


gg\  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  gg 

The  chief  State  expression  of  the  movement  to  build 
a  new  party  using  Johnson's  policy  as  a  platform  was 
made  at  Tweedle  Hall,  Albany,  on  September  II,  1866. 
The  attempt  of  the  Democrats  to  outmaneuver  the  Rad- 
icals by  uniting  with  the  Conservatives  and  taking  the 
name  of  the  Conservative  Union  convention  was  not 
preeminently  successful.  The  Democrats  were  glad  to 
receive  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  an  alliance  with 
the  Conservative  element,  but  they  were  not  willing  to 
"pay  the  price"  entailed  in  order  to  assure  complete 
success.  Delegates  of  Democratic  antecedents  controlled 
the  convention.1  The  sophistry  by  which  the  Tammany 
Democrats  attempted  to  justify  their  seizure  of  the  polit- 
ical plums  might  be  stated  thus:  had  the  Radicals  nom- 
inated a  moderate,  able  man,  it  would  have  been  well  to 
put  in  nomination  a  Conservative  to  draw  up-State  Con- 
servative votes,  "  but  against  a  narrow,  bitter  Radical, 
like  Fenton,  there  was  no  reason  in  the  world  why  a 
regular  Democrat  should  not  be  taken."2  Under  these 
circumstances,  the  Democrats  could  not  see  that  the 
Conservatives  had  any  cause  for  dissatisfaction,  espec- 
ially as  they  were  in  the  minority. 

The  convention  was  called  to  order  by  Peter  Cagger, 
who  had  succeeded  Dean  Richmond.  Sanford  E.  Church, 
of  Orleans,  a  promising  young  man  whom  Tammany 
chose  to  honor,  was  elected  temporary  chairman.  The 
sentiment  before  the  convention  opened  was  extremely 
indefinite.3      There    were    two    sets   of    delegates   from 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  11, 1866.  Greeley  stated  that  "two-thirds 
of  the  delegates  arfc  of  the  old  genuine  Copperhead  stripe.  The  other 
third  is  made  up  of  office-holding  Republicans."  New  York  World, 
Sept.  13,  1866.  The  World  magnanimously  admitted  that  the  Con- 
servatives were  in  the  minority. 

2  New  York  World,  Sept.  13,  1866. 
s  New  York  World,  Sept.  12,  1866. 


IOO       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [ioo 

New  York  and  Brooklyn,  representing  the  Conservatives 
and  the  Democrats.  They,  however,  came  to  an  agree- 
ment without  a  contest  for  seats.1  From  the  rest  of  the 
State,  the  Democratic  and  Conservative  delegates  were 
about  equally  divided.2 

Chief  among  the  candidates  for  Governor  were  General 
John  A.  Dix ;  John  T.  Hoffman,  Mayor  of  New  York ; 
General  Henry  W.  Slocum ;  Robert  H.  Pruyn  and  State 
Senator  Henry  C.  Murphy.3  It  was  claimed  for  the 
latter  that  he  would  have  been  the  nominee  had  Dean 
Richmond  remained  alive.4  Murphy  came  up  from 
Brooklyn  with  a  strong  band  of  roughs,  who  succeeded 
in  giving  him  a  false  appearance  of  strength.  But  the 
friends  of  both  Slocum  and  Murphy  soon  saw  the  futility 
of  their  candidacy  and  gracefully  retired  in  favor  of 
Hoffman.5  The  feeling  for  Dix's  candidacy  grew  stronger 
as  the  delegates  from  the  West  arrived.  The  receipt  on 
the  first  day  of  the  convention  of  the  election  returns 
from  Maine,  proclaiming  a  Radical  success,  produced  a 
strong    impression  upon    the   delegates.     The   need  for 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  12,  1866. 

'New  York  Times,  Sept.  11,  1866.  Among  the  prominent  Conserva- 
tives in  attendance  were:  Thurlow  Weed,  George  E.  Babcock,  of  Erie; 
Mayor  Richardson,  of  Oswego:  Wm.  E.  Dent,  of  St.  Lawrence;  Col. 
Follet,  of  Chicago;  P.  H.  Eagen,  of  the  Syracuse  Standard;  Gideon 
Reynolds,  of  Rensselaer;  Senator  Thomas  Murphy;  W.  W.  Smith,  of 
Syracuse,  and  George  King.  Among  the  Democratic  delegates  were: 
Judge  Pratt,  of  Syracuse;  John  A.  Green,  John  Mather,  General  Nivens, 
A.  Oakey  Hall,  and  Surrogate  Tucker,  of  New  York.  Governor  Sey- 
mour was  absent,  as  given  out,  on  account  of  illness. 

8  Sanford  E.  Church  was  strongly  pressed  for  Governor,  but  refused 
the  use  of  his  name.  The  Western  delegates,  also,  attempted  to  rally 
on  the  names  of  John  Ganson,  of  Buffalo,  and  W.  C.  Fargo,  of  the 
American  Express  Company,  but  little  headway  was  made. 

4  New  York  Times,  Sept.  11,  1866.  Better  sentiment  believed,  how- 
ever, that  Richmond  would  have  placed  Dix  in  nomination  without 
doubt. 

5  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  12,  1866. 


IOi]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  IOi 

Conservative  votes  forcibly  presented  itself.  While  it 
was  admitted  that  Dix  would  draw  more  Conservative 
votes  than  any  other  man,  his  opponents  contended  that 
such  a  gain  would  be  more  than  counterbalanced  by 
Democratic  opposition,  from  those  who  would  not  forget 
his  course  towards  Governor  Seymour.1 

The  trouble  over  the  nomination  came  chiefly  from 
the  extreme  Democrats.  Backed  by  thirty  thousand 
dollars,  they  came  to  the  convention  with  the  determi- 
nation to  nominate  Hoffman.2  The  field  narrowed 
down  to  Dix  and  Hoffman.  As  soon  as  the  Hoffman 
lobbyists  discovered  the  real  strength  of  Dix,  they  began 
a  campaign  of  defamation  against  him,  equal  to  the 
bitterness  displayed  toward  Johnson  by  the  Radicals,  or 
the  rancour  of  the  Copperheads  towards  Lincoln.  Due 
to  the  excessive  noise  of  the  Hoffman  followers,  the 
country  delegates,  judging  him  by  his  satellites,  formed  a 
very  unfavorable  opinion  of  him.3 

In  order  to  work  up  a  stronger  sentiment  for  Hoffman, 

1  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  13,  1866.  Dix  incurred  the  especial  enmity 
of  the  Seymour  Democrats  by  his  suppression  of  two  Copperhead  news- 
papers in  New  York  City  during  the  War.  The  tone  of  the  convention 
was  marred  by  the  untimely  death  of  Dean  Richmond,  who  had  so  long 
been  the  head  of  the  Democratic  State  organization.  In  life  he  was  the 
unquestioned  leader  of  the  New  York  Democracy.  Although  a  poli- 
tician, he  was  a  man  broad  in  his  sympathies,  astute  in  his  judgment  of 
people  and  highly  thought  of  by  men  of  both  parties.  Upon  the  first 
day  of  the  convention,  Samuel  J.  Tilden  was  called  upon  to  give  a 
eulogy  on  Richmond.  Cf.  note  on  Richmond.  F.  W.  Seward,  Life  of 
Seward,  vol.  iii,  p.  339.  Harper  s  Weekly,  Sept.  15,  1866.  New  York 
Herald,  Sept.  12.  1866. 

*  New  York  Times,  Sept.  12,  1866.  The  Times  suggested  that  they 
were  as  willing  to  spend  it  in  the  convention  as  on  the  canvass.  Greeley 
contributed  his  mite  in  describing  the  Democratic  hosts.  "  The  lobbies 
were  filled  with  spectators,  most  of  whom  were  roughs  from  New  York 
and  Brooklyn  .  These  fighting  characters  are  the  champions  of  .  .  . 

Mayor  Hoffman  and  Senator  Murphy."  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  12, 
1866. 

» New  York  Herald,  Sept.  13, 1866.    New  York  World,  Sept.  13, 1866. 


102        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [IQ2 

the  New  York  delegation  sparred  for  time.  By  a  coup 
d'ttat,  which,  if  not  in  accord  with  ethical  rule  or  parli- 
amentary usage,  was  startling  in  its  boldness,  they  ac- 
complished their  immediate  end,  and  thus  the  ultimate 
goal.  On  the  first  morning  of  the  convention  a  motion 
to  adjourn  until  the  morrow  was  voted  down  by  an  over- 
whelming majority.  The  same  motion  was  put  in  the 
afternoon  session  before  any  business  had  been  trans- 
acted, other  than  the  reading  of  a  letter  from  Morris 
Franklin,  of  Queens  County,  in  which  he  urged  the 
convention  to  be  harmonious.  The  spirit  of  the  letter 
was  in  obvious  contrast  with  the  immediate  action  of  the 
convention.  The  motion  for  adjournment  was  again 
voted  down  decidedly.1  To  the  surprise  of  all,  except 
the  initiated,  the  temporary  chairman,  Sanford  E.  Church, 
declared  the  convention  adjourned  until  the  next  morn- 
ing at  ten  o'clock.  Great  confusion  resulted.  Several 
delegates  were  on  their  feet  at  once  to  protest  the  ruling, 
which  Mr.  Church  attempted  to  explain.  Cries  were 
raised  from  all  sides  for  the  chairman  to  put  the  motion 
again.  He  replied  that  he  had  declared  the  convention 
adjourned ;  therefore,  no  further  business  could  be  done. 
By  the  time  the  noise  had  subsided  sufficiently  for  him  to 
speak  further,  Felix  McClosky  came  from  one  of  the 
committee  rooms.  Calling  to  Church,  he  gave  him  a 
wink.  Church  at  once  took  his  hat  and  left  the  plat- 
form.2 The  pretense  given  for  the  adjournment  was 
that  neither  the  committee  on  resolutions  nor  on  per- 
manent organization  was  ready  to  report.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  latter  committee  was  ready  and  was  only 
waiting  for  its  chairman  to  come  into  the  hall.3 

•New  York  Herald,  Sept.  13,   1866.     Ibid.,  Sept.   12,   1866.     New 
York  Times,  Sept.  12,  1866. 
'New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  12,  1866. 
'New  York  Times,  Sept.  12,  1866. 


103]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  lo$ 

The  consternation  was  intense.  Nearly  all  the  dele- 
gates rose  to  their  feet,  calling  first  on  this  one,  then  on 
that  one  to  take  the  chair.  The  outsiders  and  roughs 
broke  in  on  the  floor  of  the  hall  and  commenced  damn- 
ing Church.  Benches  were  overturned.  Bedlam  reigned. 
Surrogate  Tucker  gathered  the  Tweed  crowd  and  pro- 
posed three  cheers  for  John  Hoffman,  which  were  noisily 
given.  Then  followed  cheers  for  Murphy.  But  when  a 
Dix  man  proposed  three  cheers  for  General  Dix,  he  was 
hissed  and  groaned  down.  This  made  clear  the  motion 
for  adjournment.  Senator  Shafer,  of  Albany,  a  member 
of  the  committee  on  resolutions,  mounted  the  platform, 
and  with  the  aid  of  John  G.  Saxe,  as  chairman,  tried  to 
organize  the  body  into  a  Democratic  mass  meeting,  but 
without  success.  "  D — n  the  mass  meeting,  we  want  the 
nomination "  was  the  sentiment  which  came  from  the 
floor.1 

It  was  thought  by  the  Tammany  supporters  that  on 
adjournment  a  large  number  of  the  country  delegates 
would  tire  out  and  depart.  It  effected  just  the  opposite 
result.  However,  the  Dix  supporters  had  been  alarmed 
at  the  hisses  which,  while  not  in  great  numbers,  engen- 
dered a  feeling  in  the  delegates  that  it  would  endanger 
the  harmony  of  the  convention  if  his  name  were  pressed. 
Whether  justly  or  not,  the  hisses  were  chiefly  charged  to 
Murphy  supporters.  Some  of  the  western  Democrats 
withdrew  their  support  from  Dix,  thereby  rendering  his 
election  improbable.  Other  Dix  men  suggested  his 
withdrawal  and  concentration  on  either  Hoffman  or  Slo- 
cum.    The  latter  was  persona  non  grata  to  the  followers 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  12,  1866.  That  Shafer  knew  the  crowd 
with  which  he  was  dealing  is  illustrated,  when  in  the  course  of  his  re- 
marks he  said:  "  If  you  have  not  got  enough  money  to  pay  your  hotel 
bills  and  your  fare  back  home,  we  will  raise  it  for  you";  he  was  greeted 
with  "  Bully  for  you,"  "That's  the  point,"  "We  want  some  place  to 
sleep  and  something  to  eat." 


I04       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [104 

of  Thurlow  Weed,  who  demurred  to  Slocum  on  the 
ground  that  they  had  said  many  unpleasant  things  con- 
cerning him  in  the  previous  election,  and  did  not  want 
to  swallow  their  own  words  so  soon.1  It  was  generally 
understood  that  each  should  vote  as  he  saw  fit  upon  the 
first  ballot;  then,  if  it  was  seen  that  Dix  had  no  chance, 
to  go  for  Hoffman  in  a  body. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  convention  Thurlow  Weed, 
backed  by  Henry  Raymond  and  the  Times,  made  great 
efforts  in  aid  of  General  Dix.  Weed  perceived,  however, 
after  the  fourth  adjournment  that  he  was  vanquished. 
Horace  Greeley  describes  his  discomfiture  with  a  pleasant 
relish. 

He  became  careless,  ate  two  suppers,  and  spent  most  of  the 
night  smoking  his  mean  cigars  and  prophesying  the  defeat  of 
the  party  this  fall.  He  couldn't  be  consoled,  and  the  Hoffman 
men  did  not  try  to  console  him.  They  maintained  that  the 
Convention  was  a  Democratic  one  and  Weed  should  be  satis- 
fied with  a  back  seat.2 

The  Convention  re-convened  the  next  morning,  Sep- 
tember 12,  1866.  Mr.  A.  H.  Green,  chairman  of  the 
committee  on  permanent  organization,  reported  Hon. 
Sandford  E.  Church  for  president.  Francis  Kernan 
moved  the  adoption  of  the  committee's  report  in  a  con- 
ciliatory speech. 

He  knew  that  there  were  a  few  members  who  felt  aggrieved  by 
the  decision  of  the  Chair  yesterday.  He  regretted  this  very 
much,  but  still  not  more,  nor  as  much,  as  our  eminent  presid- 

1  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  12,  1866. 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  12,  1866.  A  Tammany  delegate  was  re- 
ported to  have  made  the  following  remark,  which  Greeley,  in  a  very 
compassionate  spirit,  felt  the  necessity  to  report:  "Thurlow  Weed  is 
an  old,  played-out  stump,  and  he  cannot  shove  any  old-time  granny 
like  Dix  on  the  Democratic  party!  No!  not  if  the  Court  knows  itself, 
which  she  thinks  she  does." 


105]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  T05 

ing"  officer.  After  his  very  proper  and  handsome  explanation 
this  morning:  he  felt  certain  there  was  not  a  delegate  present 
who  would  not  freely  and  fully  credit  the  circumstance  to  inad- 
vertence and  not  to  intention. ' 

When  Mr.  Church  resumed  the  chair  he  was  greeted 
with  great  applause  intermingled  with  hisses.  He  closed 
the  incident  of  the  previous  day  in  a  few  well  chosen 
words  calculated  to  carry  belief. 

Shortly  after  the  convention  had  been  called  to  order, 
Judge  Pierrepont,  in  seconding  the  nomination  of  John 
T.  Hoffman  made  by  A.  Oakey  Hall,  coolly  announced 
that  he  was  authorized  by  General  Dix  to  withdraw  his 
name.2  Pierrepont's  effrontery  was  still  more  pro- 
nounced when  he  stated  in  the  same  speech,  that  he  had 
united  with  the  Hoffman  Democrats  before  the  Phila- 
delphia convention.  Judge  Pierrepont  had  ostenta- 
tiously refused  to  participate  in  the  Philadelphia  conven- 
tion and  in  his  speech  at  Albany,  for  the  first  time, 
virtually  assigned  the  reason  for  so  doing.  He  said  that, 
"  Three  months  ago  several  of  us  assembled  together  in 
the  City  of  New  York  and  decided  that  Mayor  Hoffman 
should  be  nominated  for  Governor."3     It  is  evident  that 

1  New  York  Times,  Sept.  13,  1866. 

'New  York  World,  Sept.  13,  1866.  "He  said  that  he  desired  to 
make  a  few  words  of  explanation  in  reference  to  what  had  occurred 
yesterday  partly  on  account  of  a  misapprehension  on  the  part  of  the 
Chair,  and  partly  on  account  of  a  misapprehension  by  a  portion  of  the 
Convention.  When  the  Chair  found  that  neither  of  the  Committees 
were  prepared  with  a  report,  he  supposed  that  the  Convention  would  be 
inclined  to  yield  to  an  adjournment  until  this  morning.  When  the 
motion  was  made  to  adjourn  the  Chairman  declared  it  carried,  hastily, 
perhaps,  before  the  voting  was  finished.  If  that  created  any  ill  feeling 
in  the  mind  of  any  gentleman  present,  no  one  more  regretted  it  than 
the  Chair." 

"New  York  Times,  Sept.  13,  1866.  Pierrepont  closed  his  speech 
thus:  "My  friend,  my  intimate  friend,  one  whom  I  respect,  whom  I 
personally  like,  has  had  his  name  before  this  Convention,  and  with  or 


106       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [I06 

Pierrepont  played  the  traitor  to  Dix,  for  Weed  declared 
that  on  the  day  previous  Judge  Pierrepont  had  con- 
curred with  him  that  Dix  was  the  logical  candidate.1 

Mayor  Hoffman  was  enthusiastically  nominated  by 
acclamation  and  was  immediately  notified  of  his  nomina- 
tion, so  that  he  was  enabled  to  reach  the  convention  at 
one-thirty  in  the  afternoon,  and  make  an  address  of 
acceptance.  He  spoke  in  a  self-laudatory  manner  of  his 
conduct  in  former  offices.3  He  decried  the  Radicals  and 
emphasized  the  importance  of  looking  out  for  the  con- 
structive rights  of  New  York  State  and  the  Democratic 
party.3 

Two  names  were  placed  in  nomination  for  lieutenant- 
governor;  those  of  Robert  H.  Pruyn,4  of  Albany,  and 

without  his  consent,  his  friends  who  have  been  in  recent  communi- 
cation with  him — that  gallant,  excellent,  noble,  perfect  gentleman, 
and  statesman — have  desired  me  to  say  when  I  got  up  here  to  speak 
that  the  name  of  General  Dix  should  be  no  longer  before  this  Conven- 
tion, but  should  be  withdrawn  in  favor  of  John  T.  Hoffman."  New 
York  Tribune,  Sept.  13,  1866. 

1  New  York  Times,  Sept.  17,  1866. 

2  His  infamy  and  connection  with  Tweed  were  not  then  generally 
known.  The  Times  had  this  to  say  on  Hoffman:  "  He  is  a  gentleman 
of  ability  and  eminent  purity  of  character  and  his  course  during  the  war 
was  patriotic  and  unexceptionable.  We  do  not  think  that  he  will  com- 
mand as  large  a  degree  of  public  confidence  and  support  in  the  pending 
canvass  as  would  General  Dix.  .  .  However,  .  .  .  Mr.  Hoffman  is  a 
gentleman  to  whom  no  possible  exception  can  be  taken  on  personal 
grounds."     New  York  Times,  Sept.  13,  1866. 

The  Independent  saw  a  striking  similarity  between  Hoffman  and 
Horatio  Seymour.  "Both  John  T.  Hoffman  and  Horatio  Seymour 
are  aristocratic  in  sympathy  and  tastes,  while  'democrats'  in  name; 
both  have  a  clear  pro-slavery  record;  both  look  for  an  election  at  the 
hands  of  the  rum-selling  interest,  which  they  have  served;  both  can 
boast  a  large  following  of  '  friends'  in  the  lowest  strata  of  metropolitan 
ignorance  and  degradation."     The  Independent,  Sept.  27,  1866. 

3  New  York  World,  Sept.  13,  1866. 

4  History  of  the  Bench  and  Bar  of  New  York,  vol.  i,  p.  445-  Robert 
H.  Pruyn  was  formerly  a  Whig,  then  a  strong  Republican.  At  this 
time  he  zealously  advocated  a  policy  of  prompt  restoration  of  the  Union 


loy]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  I0y 

Harlow  L.  Comstock,  of  Wyoming.  On  the  defeat  of 
General  Dix,  the  western  delegates  made  a  strong  effort 
to  force  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Comstock.  It  was 
argued  that  this  recognition  should  be  given  to  the  Dix 
interests  as  compensation  for  his  defeat.'  An  effort  was 
made  to  have  Pruyn  withdraw,  but  the  Tammany  slate 
proved  too  strong,  and  the  vote  resulted  in  his  nomina- 
tion. 

For  canal  commissioner  there  was  no  contest.  Wil- 
liam W.  Wright  was  nominated  by  acclamation.  For 
inspector  of  state  prisons,  Mr.  Washington  J.  Smith 
withdrew  from  the  field  in  favor  of  Frank  B.  Gallagher, 
of  Buffalo." 

The  Democratic  organs  outside  of  New  York  City 
gave  very  subdued  accounts  of  the  Tammany  coup  diktat 

by  the  admission  of  loyal  representatives  to  their  seats  in  Congress. 
He  was  a  man  of  ability,  great  practical  energy,  and  had  had  a  large 
share  of  political  experience.  The  Times  regretted  "  exceedingly  that 
Mr.  Pruyn  saw  fit  to  accept  a  nomination  at  the  hands  of  the  Albany 
Convention.  He  regards  it .  not  as  a  Democratic  Convention  but 
as  a  Convention  of  National  Union  Men."  New  York  Times,  Oct.  5, 
1866. 
1  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  13,  1866. 
'The  following  were  announced  as  the  new  State  Committee: 

1st  District- Chas.  G.  Cornell,  Peter  B.  Sweeney,  Thos.  E.  Stewart. 

2nd  District— William  M.  Parks,  Elias  Beach. 

3rd  District— Peter  Cagger,  F.  D.  Laflin,  Gideon  Reynolds. 

4th  District— Wm.  J.  Averill,  A.  B.  Waldo,  George  Briggs. 

5th  District— Delos  Dewolf,  Lewis  H.  Brown,  Henry  H.  Fish. 

6th  District— Henry  D.  Banto,  Jr.,  C.  H.  Walrath,  D.  L.  Follett. 

7th  District— C.  C.  B.  Walker,  Elmore  P.  Rose,  David  H.  Asell. 

8th  District— Henry  A.  Richmond,  J.  W.  Sherman,  A.  P.  Lanning. 
Members  of  the  State  Committee-at-Large  were  Samuel  J.  Tilden, 
N.  Y.  C.j  Francis  Kernan,  Oneida;  William  G.  Fargo,  Erie. 
The  ticket  was  as  follows: 

Governor— John  T.  Hoffman,  New  York. 

Lieutenant-Governor— Robert  H.  Pruyn,  Albany. 

Canal  Commissioner— William  W.  Wright,  Ontario. 

Prison  Inspector— Frank  B.  Gallagher,  Erie. 

—New  York  World,  Sept.  13,  1866. 


Io8       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [io8 

in  the  convention.  Uniformly,  in  place  of  the  custom- 
ary blare  of  trumpets,  those  papers  attempted  to  keep 
from  the  reading  public  the  details  of  the  methods  used. 
The  Utica  Daily  Observer  was  the  chief  Democratic 
sheet  to  suggest  the  turbulence  in  the  convention,  which 
it  did  in  a  delicate  manner.  "An  agreement  so  hearty 
after  a  canvass  so  animated,  has  rarely  been  reached  in 
any  deliberative  body."  '  The  Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal 
was  most  unkind  in  its  remarks  to  the  discomfited  Con- 
servatives who  had  joined  the  Democrats  at  Albany. 

They  were  green  enough  to  suppose  that  because  the  Copper- 
heads took  back  seats  at  Saratoga  and  Philadelphia,  while 
Doolittle,  Randall,  Raymond,  Weed  and  Co.,  reconstructed 
the  Democratic  party,  they  were  to  have  full  direction  of  af- 
fairs ....  but  they  failed  to  read  Nasby,  and  learn  that  the 
first  and  only  instinct  of  the  Democracy  is  office;  that  however 
quiet  they  may  be  at  meetings  where  no  offices  are  to  be  be- 
stowed, in  nominating  Conventions  they  are  as  rancorous  as 
wolves.  * 

The  Syracuse  Daily  Journal  rejoiced  that  the  Albany 
Regency  had  completely  passed  over  to  the  Democrats, 
taking  with  it  Mr.  Pruyn.3  In  the  same  vein  Roberts, 
of  the  Utica  Morning  Herald,  rejoiced :  Le  roi  est  mort  : 
vive  le  roi.  "The  head  of  the  Regency  has  passed  away, 
still  the  Regency  lives  and  rules."4  But  in  more  sober 
tongue  he  continued  that  while  the  ticket  was  not  one 
that  could  impel  men  to  special  activity,  yet  it  was  not 
one  to  be  despised  and  called  for  organization.5  Tam- 
many was  first  supported  in  its  questionable  convention 
methods  outside  of  New  York  City  by  Mr.  W.  W.  Green, 

1  Utica  Daily  Observer,  Sept.  13,  1866. 

*  Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  14,  1866. 

3  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  12,  1866. 

4  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Sept.  13,  1866.  6 Ibid. 


IOq]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  i0g 

editor  of  the  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union.  In  a 
dispassionate  editorial  he  expressed  the  belief  that  al- 
though part  of  the  State  delegates  were  for  Dix,  his  atti- 
tude towards  Seymour  would  have  detracted  more  Dem- 
ocratic votes  from  him  than  he  would  have  drawn  from 
the  Conservatives,  it  being  admitted  that  he  would  have 
drawn  more  Conservative  votes  than  any  other  candidate.1 
The  platform  reaffirmed  the  principles  set  forth  by  the 
Philadelphia  Convention  of  August  14,  1866,  and  prom- 
ised to  reaffirm  and  hold  inviolable  the  faith  of  the  Nation 
to  the  South.  It  urged  the  restoration  of  the  great  mass 
of  people  in  the  South  to  all  the  rights  and  functions  of 
citizenship.  Further,  the  platform  affirmed  that  "  the 
centralization  of  power  in  this  State,  not  less  than  in  the 
Union,  is  fatal  to  the  harmony  of  our  political  system. 
.  .  .  Recent  legislation  at  Albany  has  usurped  a  supreme 
yet  fitful  control  of  the  local  affairs  which  counties  and 
municipalities  are  entitled  to  regulate."2  Lastly,  the 
platform  criticised  the  Radical  legislative  extravagance 
and  "fraudulent  tampering  with  the  public  works  of  the 
State.  At  Washington  millions  have  been  squandered 
upon  central  schemes  of  local  benefactions,  and  a  partisan 
Congress,  while  reducing  the  appropriations  for  a  patri- 
otic soldiery,  has  not  scrupled  to  enhance  its  own  emolu- 
ments of  office."3  The  reference  to  the  "recent  legisla- 
tion at  Albany "  resulted  from  acts  of  the  legislature, 
which  was  controlled  by  Radicals,  placing  the  control  of 
New  York  City  administration  largely  under  boards  and 
commissions.4  Tammany  strongly  opposed  the  interfer- 
ence with  their  freedom  oihome  rule. 

1  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Sept.  13,  1866. 

'New  York  World,  Sept.  13,  1866.  % Ibid. 

4 The  most  important  of  these  acts  were:  M  An  Act  to  create  a  Metro- 
politan Sanitary  District  and  Board  of  Health  therein  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  life  and  health  and  to  prevent  the  spread  of  disease."     Laws  of 


HO       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [no 

Exactly  what  was  the  real  editorial  opinion  of  the 
State  Democratic  papers  in  reference  to  the  Albany 
platform  is  difficult  to  gauge.  From  the  dearth  of  con- 
vincing statements  it  would  appear  that  the  Democratic 
press  believed  it  wiser  to  pass  over  the  troublesome 
questions  peculiar  to  New  York,  and  direct  the  public 
eye  to  the  principles  of  the  Philadelphia  convention 
alone.  As  was  natural,  the  Conservatives  resented  the 
apparent  intention  of  the  Democrats  to  strengthen  their 
party  at  the  expense  of  the  Conservatives,  who  had 
entered  into  the  movement  to  organize  a  party  founded 
on  the  President's  policy  with  bona  fide  intentions. 
Several  papers  reminded  the  Democrats  of  their  obliga- 
tions to  keep  faith.  "  It  seems  clear  from  this  state- 
ment," ■  remarked  the  Times, 

that  Mr.  Hoffman  was  nominated,  not  as  the  result  of  any 
tacit  or  other  understanding  at  the  Philadelphia  Convention, 

New  York,  1866,  C.  74,  vol.  i,  p.  114.  Passed  February  26,  1866.  This 
act  was  amended  April  19,  1866,  when  special  directions  as  to  enforce- 
ment and  penalties  were  given.  Laws  of  New  York,  1866,  C.  686, 
vol.  ii,  p.  1462. 

"An  act  to  amend  an  act  passed  April  twenty-five,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  sixty-four,  entitled  '  An  act  to  amend  an  act  enti- 
tled, "  An  act  to  establish  a  Metropolitan  Police  District,  and  to  provide 
for  the  government  thereof,"  passed  April  fifteen,  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty-seven,'  passed  April  ten.  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  sixty."  Laws  of  New  York,  1866,  C.  84,  vol.  i,  p.  153.  Passed 
Feb.  28,  1866. 

Metropolitan  Fire  Department,  two  acts  relating  to.  Laws  of  New 
York,  1866,  C.  315,  vol.  i,  p.  719;  ibid.,  C.  756,  vol.  ii,  p.  1637. 

' '  An  Act  in  relation  to  Quarantine  in  the  port  of  New  York  and 
providing  for  the  construction  of  the  permanent  Quarantine  establish- 
ment."    Laws  of  New  York,  1866,  C.  751,  vol.  ii,  p.  [625. 

The  Registry  Law,  also,  was  amended.  "An  Act  to  ascertain  by 
proper  proofs  who  shall  be  entitled  to  the  rights  of  suffrage. "  This 
was  a  stringent  tightening  up  of  the  Registry  Laws,  which  placed  the 
metropolitan  police  largely  in  control.  Laws  of  New  York,  1866, 
C.  812,  vol.  ii,  p.  1780. 

1  Pierrepont's  Speech  before  the  Convention.     Cf.  supra,  p.  106. 


Hi]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  1 1 1 

but  as  the  result  of  a  meeting-  of  '  several  of  us '  held  in  New 
York  two  months  before  the  Philadelphia  Convention  assem- 
bled; and  not  as  the  exponent  of  its  principles,  nor  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying:  into  effect  its  purposes  and  objects,  but  as 
the  representative  of  the  Democratic  party  and  for  the  purpose 
of  promoting-  its  welfare  and  securing  its  success. 1 

The  Conservatives  were  further  disgruntled  over  the 
insertion  into  the  Albany  platform  of  a  plank  which  con- 
demned the  several  boards  and  commissions  provided 
for  New  York  City  by  the  Radical  legislature.2  Ray- 
mond on  October  2,  1866,  came  out  openly  in  support 
of  the  Republican  ticket.     The  Times  of  that  date  says : 

The  Philadelphia  Convention  had  indicated  a  strong  desire,  on 
the  part  of  patriotic  men  in  both  sections,  for  a  restoration  of 
the  Union  upon  just  and  Constitutional  principles;  and  there 
was  a  large  body  of  people  ready  to  waive  their  party  relations 
for  this  specific  purpose,  and  co-operate  in  measures  to  give 
this  desired  effect.  The  Democrats  believed  that  they  could 
use  this  disposition  for  their  own  party  purposes.  They  seized 
upon  it,  not  to  co-operate  in  carrying  it  out,  but  to  make  it 
do  their  party  work.3 

"We  are  opposed,  out  and  out,  to  the  election  of  the 
Democratic  State  ticket  nominated  at  Albany,  and  in 
favor  of  Fenton,  Woodford,  and  their  associates,  on  the 
the  Union  State  ticket/'  said  the  Times  of  October  5, 
1866,  in  answer  to  a  quibble  issued  by  Thurlow  Weed  in 
the  Albany  Evening  Journal* 

Thurlow  Weed,  in  a  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  New 
York   Times,  stated  what  be  understood  to  be  the  pur- 

1  New  York  Times,  Sept.  17,  1866. 

'The  Police  Commission,  the  Board  of  Charities,  the  Emigration 
Commission,  the  Central  Park  Commission  and  the  Board  of  Health, 
all  came  in  for  condemnation. 

3  New  York  Times,  Oct.  2,  1866. 

*  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Oct.  1,  1866. 


112       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [II2 

port  of  the  Albany  convention.  The  two  reasons  he 
gave  for  the  preservation  of  the  Philadelphia  principle 
in  the  convention  at  Albany  were :  "  First,  that  the 
Democratic  Party  were  in  a  pronounced  minority ;  and 
second,  that  its  odor  of  disloyalty  restrained  Republicans, 
however  opposed  to  Radicalism,  from  uniting  with  it  as 
a  Party."  Weed  regretted  the  action  of  Judge  Pierre- 
pont. 

That  the  Democratic  Party  consented,  for  the  accomplishment 
of  a  great  national  reform,  to  temporarily  merge  itself  in  the 
National  Union  Movement,  was  my  understanding  and  expect- 
ation. That,  too,  was  the  understanding  of  the  late  Mr.  Rich- 
mond, with  whom  I  held  frequent,  frank  and  unreserved  con- 
versations. I  advised  the  Philadelphia  Convention  ....  that 
if  the  Democracy  would,  by  its  experience  in  adversity,  learn 
that  it  could  only  restore  itself  to  popular  confidence .  by  be- 
coming loyal,  a  reform  Democracy  would  ultimately  recover 
possession  of  the  Government.  And  I  now  avow,  unhesitat- 
ingly, my  conviction,  that  the  Government  would  be  safer  in 
the  hands  of  such  Democratic  statesmen,  as  Marcy,  Wright 
and  Dix,  than  with  the  reckless  red  radicalism  which  rules  the 
present  Congress  ....  For  myself  there  is  nothing  political  in 
the  past  that  I  would  recall.  All  that  I  uttered,  before  and 
during  the  rebellion,  may  be  read  with  approval  now,  ....  I 
differ  with  Judge  Pierrepont  and  the  World  in  my  understand- 
ing of  the  character  of  the  State  ticket  for  which  I  shall  vote.1 

James  Gordon  Bennett  experienced  a  change  of  heart. 
He  had  been  a  firm  supporter  of  the  Johnsonian  policy, 
but,  Johnson's  conduct  and  the  Maine  election  evidently 
foretold  him  of  danger. 

We  are  convinced  from  the  significant  results  of  the  Maine 
election  that  this  amendment  will  carry  all  the  Northern  States 
yet  to  come  ....  We  would  therefore  urge  upon  President 
Johnson  the  statesmanlike  policy  of  a  truce  with  Congress,  and 

1  New  York  Times,  Oct.  g,  1866. 


113]  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  RECONSTRUCTION  713 

an  active  co-operation  with  the  fixed  and  predominant  public 
opinion  of  the  North.1 

Bennett's  desertion  of  President  Johnson  and  the  Demo- 
cratic party  was  a  grievous  blow  to  the  Democrats. 
The  World  impotently  remarked  concerning  the  change 
in  the  Herald's  attitude,  "  Its  opposition  is  harmless 
but  its  cooperation  is  disgusting.  .  .  .  No  man  can  fore- 
tell  what  its  crass   stupidity  and   blind   selfishness  may 

inflict  upon  the  Tribune,  [and]  The  Independent, 

Wendell  Phillips  hardly  deserved  this — Thaddeus  Stevens 
was  worthy  of  a  milder  fate."3 

The  World  of  October  5,  1866,  maintained  that  "The 
New  York  delegation  to  Philadelphia  was  appointed  by  a 
gathering  of  politicians  at  Saratoga,  which  neither  repre- 
sented, had  any  authority  to  bind  nor  made  any  pretense 
of  binding  the  Democratic  organization  of  the  State." 
The  World  then  asked  : 

Did  the  Democratic  Party  then  and  there,  acting  through  its 
accredited  representatives,  agree  to  give  up  its  organization, 
abandon  its  name,  and  merge  its  existence  into  a  new  party  ? 
So  far  from  it,  that  then  and  there,  in  spite  of  urgent,  persist- 
ent entreaties  to  the  contrary,  it  determined  to  issue  its  regular 
and  customary  call  for  a  Democratic  State  Convention. 

The  Albany  Argus  took  the  same  attitude  as  the  World. 
Mr.  Weed  denounced  the  spirit  of  the  two  papers  and 
claimed  that  the  majority  of  the  leading  Democrats  of 
the  State  were  acting  in  good  faith. 

1  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  15,  1866: 

*  New  York  World,  Sept.  20,  1866. 

Note.— The  colored  people  of  the  State  gathered  in  convention  at  Al- 
bany on  October  16,  1866,  through  a  call  issued  by  the  Colored  People's 
State  central  committee.  The  convention,  which  lasted  two  days,  was 
attended  by  what  Horace  Greeley  termed  a  "  fine  body  of  men."  (a) 
A  platform  was  adopted,  the  chief  provisions  of  which  maintained,  that 


II4       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [n4 

the  $250  property  clause  for  colored  people  in  the  State  constitution 
was  unjust,  and  "that  the  elective  franchise  in  this  Republic  is  not  a 
gift  but  a  right  belonging  to  all  native-born  men."  (b)  A  joint  address 
was  issued  to  the  Democrats  and  Conservatives  which  made  a  statement 
of  what  the  negroes  believed  to  be  their  duty,  and,  also,  begged  for 
recognition,  (c)  The  Tribune,  by  its  conciliatory  attitude  towards  the 
negroes,  drew  the  few  votes  of  those  qualified,  (a)  New  York  Tribune y 
Sept.  17,  1866.     (b)  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  18,  1866.     (c)  Ibid. 


CHAPTER  V 
The  Campaign  of  1866 

The  State  campaign  of  1866  was  waged  with  an  ardor 
and  a  seriousness  akin  to  a  Presidential  election.  The 
Independent,  a  paper  which  represented  the  moral  and 
religious  sentiments  of  the  community,  voiced  the  Radi- 
cal battle-cry,  "  All  hail  to  a  reconstructed  Union  on  the 
granite  of  Impartial  Suffrage."1  Questions  of  national 
policy  occupied  the  forefront  among  the  issues.  How- 
ever, there  was  one  local  question  which  caused  the  Demo- 
crats, in  attempting  to  avoid  it,  considerable  anxiety : 
namely,  the  question  of  legislative  commissions  for  New 
York  City.  It  was  well  known  that  Hoffman,  as  mayor 
of  the  City,  was  mortally  opposed  to  the  legislative 
action  which  took  control  of  municipal  boards  from  the 
mayor  and  the  common  council.  The  Times  publicly 
accused  Hoffman  of  being  pledged  to  do  away  with  these 
commissioners  and  to  "  leave  the  city  to  itself."8  It 
called  to  mind  the  administration  of  the  City  under  the 
old  system,  and  asked  what  might  have  happened  during 
the  summer  of  1866,  with  Mayor  Hoffman's  Democratic 
board  devising  means  to  keep  off  the  cholera. 

Horace  Greeley  questioned  the  citizens  of  New  York 
City  if  they  desired  a  return  "  to  the  Health  Boards  of 
the  Ring,  under  which  from  7,000  to  10,000  preventable 
deaths  occurred  annually,"  or  if  they  desired  a  return  to 

1  The  Independent,  Sept.  20,  1866. 
■  New  York  Times,  Oct.  9,  1866. 

115]  "5 


Il6       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [n6 

the  old  Volunteer  Fire  Department  system  "  with  all  its 
rowdyism,  violence,  rioting,  bunking,  false  voting,  and 
all  its  immoralities  and  costliness."  "  Remember,  then," 
said  Greeley,  "  that  a  vote  for  Mr.  Hoffman  consigns  the 
City  to  the  mercy  of  the  Rings."  J  James  Gordon  Ben- 
nett charged  that  Hoffman  owed  his  nomination  as 
mayor  of  New  York  City  and  as  Governor  of  the  State 
to  the  corrupt  patronage  of  "  Street  Commissioner 
Charles  G.  Cornell  and  his  deputy,  Supervisor  Tweed."2 
Harper 's  Weekly  believed  that  aside  from  all  other  ob- 
jections to  Hoffman,  the  fact  that  he  was  "  the  candidate 
of  the  '  Ring,'  which  has  made  the  name  of  New  York 
City  government  a  stench  in  the  national  nostrils,"  would 
be  fatal  to  his  candidacy.3 

The  World,  forced  to  an  answer  by  the  constant  "  bug- 
abooing"4  of  the  Republican  organs,  gave  the  lie  direct. 
"  They  sustain  their  calumny  with  not  an  atom  of  evi- 
dence or  fact.  They  advance  it  as  a  naked  falsehood, 
without  color  of  excuse  or  pretense  of  proof."5  The 
Tribune  made  another  troublesome  charge  which  the 
Democrats,  in  general,  and  the  World,  in  particular,  saw- 
fit  to  ignore.  Hoffman's  Copperhead  affiliations  were 
reviewed  and  he  was  burdened  with  this  utterance  made 
in  the  Presidential  campaign  of  1864 :  "  If  Tennessee  is 
not  allowed  to  vote  in  the  Electoral  College,  and  Lincoln 
should  be  elected,  I  would  advise  revolution  and  resist- 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  13,  1866. 

2  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  13,  1866. 

8  Harper's  Weekly,  Oct.  20,  1866,  p.  658. 

*New  York  Worlds  Oct.  19,  1866.  The  "Herald,  Tribune  and  Times, 
are  now  bugabooing  in  vociferous  concert  that  the  election  of  Mr.  Hoff- 
man would  be  a  deliberate  surrender  of  this  city  into  the  hands  of  the 
plunderers  of  the  Ring." 

6  New  York  World,  Oct.  19,  1866. 


1 1 7]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  1 1  y 

ance  to  the  Government,  and  you  may  know  which  side 
to  find  me  on."1 

Where  campaigns  were  in  progress,  the  President, 
also,  did  much  to  hurt  the  National  Union  cause,2  through 
his  great  use  of  the  "  spoils  system."  "  The  President 
is  making  vigorous  use  of  the  opportunity  afforded  him 
by  the  recess  of  the  Senate  to  sweep  the  public  service 
clean  of  all  persons  who  do  not  approve  of  his  '  policy,' 
and  put  in  their  places  those  who  do."3     Thurlow  Weed 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  5,  1866. 

'A  small,  witty,  campaign  book,  which  had  great  popularity  and  was 
a  potent  factor  in  the  opposition  to  Johnson,  was  entitled:  "Swing-in 
Round  the  Cirkle,"  by  Petroleum  V.  Nasby  (D.  R.  Locke).  [Illus- 
trated by  Thomas  Nast.] 

"  Late  Pastor  of  the  Church  of  the  New  dispensation, 

Chaplain  to  his  Excellency  the  President  and  P.M. 

at  the  Conferate  x  Roads,  Kentucky." 

The  satire  of  the  dedication  gives  the  keynote  to  the  whole  volume. 

"  Dedikashun  uv  this  book 

To 

Androo  Johnson 

The  Pride  and  Hope  uv  Dimocrisy 

Who  hez  bin  Alderman  uv  his  native  village, 

Guvner  uv  his  State, 

Member  uv  the  lower  house  uv  Congress, 

And  likewise  uv  the  Senit, 

Vice  President  and  President,  and  might  hev  bin  Diktater, 

But  who  is  nevertheless,  a  Humble  Individoaal; 

Who  hez  swung  around  the  entire  cirkle  uv  offishl  honor, 

without  feelin  his  Oats  much: 

The  first  public  man  who  considered  my  services  worth  payin  for: 

This  volume 

Is  Respectfully  Dedikated." 

David  R.  Locke,  of  the  Toledo  Blade,  first  published  the  series  in  his 

paper. 

lThe  Nation,  Sept.  6,  1866,  p.  191.  Ibid.,  Sept.  2j,  1866,  p.  241. 
Johnson  removed  1283  postmasters  during  the  campaign,  and  a  relative 
number  of  custom-house  employees  and  internal  revenue  officers,  De- 
witt,  The  Impeachment  and  Trial  of  Andrew  Johnson  (New  York, 
1903),  P-  123.     Referring  to  the  office-holders  Johnson  in  his  St.  Louis 


Il8       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [n8 

complained  that  "  prominent  among  the  causes  of  em- 
barrassment is  the  appointment  of  '  Copperheads '  to 
office.  Those  who  mislead  the  Administration  in  this 
respect  do  much  wrong  and  more  mischief.  .  .  .  Wher- 
ever Copperheads  are  appointed  to  or  nominated  for 
office,  the  effect  will  prove  disastrous." ■ 

Politicians  on  both  sides  during  the  course  of  the 
campaign  endeavored  to  argue  philologically  as  to  the 
technical  use  of  the  word  happen,  which  is  found  in  the 
constitutional  clause  giving  the  President  power  "  to  fill 
vacancies  that  may  happen  during  the  recess  of  the  Sen- 
ate."2 Those  who  argued  for  Congress  claimed  the 
inference  was  that  he  had  no  power  to  fill  vacancies 
which  he  himself  had  created,  in  as  much  as  the  word 
happen  contains  the  idea  of  chance  and  excludes  the  idea 
of  premeditation.  Johnson's  supporters  maintained  that 
the  word  happen  meant  occur,  with  the  idea  that  any 
occurrence  of  a  vacancy  from  whatsoever  cause  gave  the 
President  power  to  fill  that  vacancy.3  The  Nation  aptly 
summarized  the  discussion  on  this  point :  "  Philological 
discussions,  carried  on  half  in  slang  and  half  in  billings- 
gate by  red-hot  political  partisans,  are  generally  amusing 
rather  than  profitable,  and  the  discussions  we  have  had 
about  the  meaning  of  this  word  furnish  no  exception  to 
the  rule."4 

speech  said:  "I  will  kick  them  out  just  as  fast  as  I  can."  The  Sher- 
man Letters  (New  York,  1894),  p.  278. — "  But  worse  than  all,  his  turn- 
ing out  good  men— sometimes  wounded  soldiers— merely  because  they 
adhered  to  their  party  convictions,  and  putting  in  men  who  opposed  the 
war  throughout,  is  simply  an  unmitigated  outrage  that  will  stain  the 
name  of  any  man  connected  with  such  conduct." 

1  New  York  Times,  Oct.  9,  1866. 

2  United  States  Constitution,  Art.  II,  Sec.  2. 

3  New  York  World,  Aug.  21,  1866. 

4  The  Nation,  Sept.  6,  1866,  p.  191. 


II9]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  II9 

Due  to  his  partisan  zeal  and  national  preeminence  as  a 
clergyman,  Henry  Ward  Beecher  received  much  attention 
on  account  of  a  letter1  he  wrote  in  answer  to  an  invitation 
to  attend  the  Soldiers'  and  Sailors'  Convention  at  Cleve- 
land. Beecher's  letter  had  a  great  influence  in  the  cam- 
paign as  the  best  resume  of  the  Presidential  policy  yet 
given.*  Beecher  advocated  the  admission  of  representa- 
tives from  the  Southern  States.  "  It  is  said  that  if  admit- 
ted to  Congress,  the  Southern  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives will  coalesce  with  Northern  Democrats  and  rule  the 
country."  He  asked,  "  Is  this  nation,  then,  to  remain 
dismembered  to  serve  the  ends  of  parties?  Have  we 
learned  no  wisdom  by  the  history  of  the  last  ten  years, 
in  which  just  this  course  of  sacrificing  the  nation  to  the 
exigencies  of  parties  plunged  us  into  rebellion  and  war?  "3 
Beecher  believed  that  the  new  and  more  advanced  ideas 
resulting  from  the  experience  of  the  previous  five  years 
were  sufficient  to  avert  the  dangers  which  were  feared 
from  a  participation  of  the  South  in  the  government.4 

1  The  Independent,  Sept.  6,  1866. 

*  Harper's  Weekly,  Sept.  22,  1866,  p.  594.  Harper's  Weekly  de- 
murred to  the  letter.  .  .  "We  must  say  frankly  that,  as  a  campaign 
document,  it  will  persuade  only  those  who  do  not  understand  the  ques- 
tion. For  it  does  not  seem  to  us  to  touch  the  question.  To  be  asked 
whether  it  is  convincing  is  like  being  asked  after  a  feast  of  watermelon, 
how  the  peaches  taste.     We  have  not  tasted  them." 

3  The  Independent,  Sept.  6,  1866. 

*  Ibid.  The  following  passage  in  Beecher's  letter  is  suggestive  of  his 
prescience  in  the  treatment  of  the  negro  problem:  "Civilization  is  a 
growth.  None  can  escape  that  forty  years  in  the  wilderness  who  travel 
from  the  Egypt  of  ignorance  to  the  promised  land  of  civilization.  The 
freedmen  must  take  their  march.  I  have  full  faith  in  the  results.  If 
they  have  the  stamina  to  undergo  the  hardships  which  every  uncivilized 
people  has  undergone  in  their  upward  progress,  they  will  in  due  time 
take  their  place  among  us.  That  place  cannot  be  bought,  nor  be- 
queathed, nor  gained  by  sleight  of  hand.  It  will  come  to  sobriety, 
virtue,  industry  and  frugality.  As  the  nation  cannot  be  sound  until  the 
South  is  prosperous,  so,  on  the  other  extreme,  a  healthy  condition  of 
civil  society  in  the  South  is  indispensable  to  the  welfare  of  the  freedmen. " 


120       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [120 

Horace  Greeley  took  up  the  cudgels  against  Beecher. 
"The  Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher  has  written  a  letter 
approving  the  Cleveland  Convention,  which  shows  that 
the  war  has  taught  him  nothing,  while  he  has  forgotten 
his  own  teachings."1     The  Times  remarked: 

What  a  pity  it  is  that  Mr.  Beecher  is  so  stupid !  If  he  had  been 
so  docile  and  quick  to  learn  as  the  Tribune,  he  might  have 
been  possibly  as  wise  now  as  that  journal  was  when  it  advo- 
cated the  right  of  secession,  urged  peace  '  on  the  best  obtain- 
able terms  '  if  one  more  battle  should  fail,  and  proposed  to  pay 
the  Slave  States,  rebel  and  loyal  alike,  $400,000,000,  as  com- 
pensation for  the  loss  of  their  slaves.  It  is  a  great  misfortune 
that  Mr.  Beecher  is  so  dull.' 

However,  slightly  over  a  month  later,  we  find  Beecher 
making  the  ratification  speech,  at  the  Brooklyn  Academy 
of  Music,  for  Fenton  and  the  Radicals.  "  The  continuance 
in  power  of  the  Republican  Party  is  indispensable  to  the 
great  work  of  raising  up  the  Freedmen  to  security  and 

•New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  1,  1866. 

2  New  York  Times,  Sept.  3,  1866;  New  York  World,  Sept.  10,  1866. 
The  World,  also,  came  out  in  strong  support  of  Beecher  on  the  occa- 
sion of  his  second  letter.  "Mr.  Beecher  remains  a  Republican:  re- 
mains a  devoted  friend  of  the  black  race;  remains  a  vigorous  advocate 
of  the  right  of  the  negroes  to  the  ballot." 

The  Nation,  Sept.  6,  1866,  p.  192.  The  Nation  praised  the  letter  "as 
perhaps  the  most  taking  and  specious  statement  yet  made  of  the  John- 
son position,"  but  added,  "the  fault  of  the  letter  is  not  that  its  state- 
ments are  not  true,  or  that  its  arguments  are  fallacious,  but  that  nearly 
every  line  of  it  suggests  false  inferences,  and  this  it  is,  added  to  the 
character  of  the  author,  which  makes  it  likely  that  it  will  do  a  good 
deal  of  mischief."  .  When  Mr.    Beecher  calls  on  us   'to  dismiss 

from  our  minds  the  idea  that  the  freedmen  can  be  classified  and  separa- 
ted from  the  white  population  and  nursed  and  defended  by  themselves,' 
he  is  guilty  of  something  very  like  a  sophism.  One  great  cause  of  the 
present  trouble  is  that  the  South  insists,  in  spite  of  the  warning  of  his- 
tory, in  classifying  the  freedmen,  '  and  bases  its  classification  on  the 
absurd  distinction  of  color." 


121  ]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  I2I 

intelligence  and  citizenship,"  was  the  sentiment  of  his 
address.1  Beecher  had  been  so  maligned  for  his  sup- 
port of  Johnson's  policy,  that  at  last,  completely  dis- 
gusted with  the  President's  erratic  course,  he  left  him  to 
his  fate.  "  Mr.  Johnson  just  now  and  for  some  time 
past  has  been  the  greatest  obstacle  in  the  way  of  his  own 
views.2 

The  Fenian  agitation,  with  which  the  papers  of  this 
period  were  filled,  exerted  a  strong  influence  upon  the 
campaign  due  to  the  large  Irish  population  in  New  York 
State,  its  proximity  to  Canada,  and  the  pro-Irish  sym- 
pathy which  was  prevalent.3  The  Radical  leaders  en- 
deavored, with  the  aid  of  the  New  York  Tribune4'  and 
the  Radical  up-State  papers,  to  influence  the  Fenian 
vote  in  favor  of  their  policy.     President  Johnson  took 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  16,  1866. 

'Quoted  from  a  private  letter,  Sept.  6,  1866.  Alexander,  A  Political 
History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  vol.  iii,  p.  163. 

•The  Fenian  movement,  remotely,  was  the  outgrowth  of  Irish  hatred 
for  England,  immediately,  it  developed  from  the  "Young  Ireland" 
movement  of  1848-9.-  The  Fenian  movement  received  its  name  from  a 
secret  brotherhood,  which  had  lodges  in  most  of  the  important  cities  of 
Europe,  Great  Britain,  Canada  and  the  United  States.  The  secrecy 
with  which  the  order  was  guided,  together  with  its  great  chain  of  lodges, 
made  the  movement  most  formidable.  Various  invasions  against  and 
uprisings  in  Canada  were  planned  and  attempted.  These  movements 
largely  had  their  base  in  the  United  States,  and  correspond  to  similar 
movements  in  and  against  Ireland.  Eventually,  the  active  measures 
taken  by  England  to  suppress  the  movement  effected  its  overthrow. 

4Cf.  speeches  of  Schuyler  Colfax  and  General  John  A.  Logan.  New 
York  Tribune,  Aug.  16,  1866;  Aug.  18,  22,  1866.  Also  Binghamton 
Daily  Republican,  Aug.  30,  1866;  Sept.  11;  Oct.  31,  1866;  Syracuse 
Daily  Standard,  Oct.  30,  1866;  Buffalo  Express,  Oct.  10,  Nov.  6,  1866. 
Buffalo  was  one  of  the  Fenian  centers.  The  Express  worked  hard  to 
secure  the  Fenian  vote  for  the  Radicals.  The  Buffalo  Daily  Courier, 
Oct.  10,  31,  1866,  tried  to  offset  the  Radical  organs  by  telling  the 
Fenians  that  all  the  Radicals  wanted  was  their  votes  and  then  the 
Fenian  movement  would  be  deserted.    This  proved  true. 


I22       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [122 

firm  and  active  measures  to  stop  the  preparation  of 
Fenian  raids  within  the  United  States.  He  also  did  all 
in  his  power  to  have  the  neutrality  laws  observed. 
The  President's  strict  adherence  to  duty  in  relation  to 
the  Fenians  cost  him  and  the  Democrats  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  Irish  vote.1  This  phase  of  the  campaign 
assumed  considerable  importance.  The  World  com- 
mented that, 

the  desperate,  unnatural  and  venal,  but  fortunately  very  trans- 
parent efforts  which  the  Radical  leaders  and  press  have  re- 
cently been  making  to  cajole  our  Irish  fellow-citizens  over  to 
their  infernal  plot  for  the  dismemberment  of  our  country  .... 
is  happily  arousing  the  vigilance  and  contempt  of  the  whole 
Irish  race  among  us.2 

The  Universe,  of  Philadelphia,  a  prominent  Irish  organ, 
reminded  its  readers  that  "these  Radical  negro-wor- 
shippers, now  blarneying  them  so  prettily  to  get  their 
votes  in  the  coming  election,  are  only  the  same  herd  of 
dark-lantern  Know-Nothings,  anti-Catholics,  anti-Irish, 
pro-negro,  pro-church-and-convent-burning  people  whom 
they  have  such  bitter  cause  to  remember."3  Neverthe- 
less, in  the  interior  of  the  State,  wherever  the  Irish  pop- 
ulation was  numerous,  and   where  the   Democrats  had 

1  The  Nation,  Sept.  20,  1866,  p.  221.  The  Nation  predicted  that  the 
Conservative  Republicans  and  Democrats  would,  "probably,  generally 
lose  the  Irish  vote  in  the  State,  owing  to  Mr.  Johnson's  dealings  with 
the  Fenians,  which,  however,  reflected  infinite  credit  on  him  and  we 
are  sorry  to  say  his  opponents,  so  far  from  praising  him  for  this  vindi- 
cation of  the  law  at  the  expense  of  his  popularity,  are  using  it  against 
him  all  over  the  country  and  cajoling  the  Fenians  with  promises  of 
impunity  in  their  raid,  which  reflect  about  equal  discredit  on  the  Amer- 
ican name  whether  they  are  intended  to  be  kept  or  not." 

2  New  York  World,  Aug.  24,  1866. 

'The  Universe,  Philadelphia.  Quoted  in  the  New  York  World, 
Aug.  24,  1866. 


123]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  I23 

not  been  able  to  meet  the  Radical  arguments,  the  Demo- 
cratic vote  fell  off,  with  a  proportionate  increase  in  the 
Radicals'  strength.1  The  promise  with  which  the  Radi- 
cals tempted  the  Irish  vote  in  the  campaign  was  the 
passage  of  more  favorable  neutrality  laws. 

Another  important  element  that  entered  into  the  cam- 
paign and  one  which  made  Fenton's  victory  more  no- 
table, was  the  excise  movement.  A  stringent  excise  law 
was  passed  on  April  14,  1866,2  which  caused  great  ex- 
citement in  the  metropolitan  police  district.  The  law 
was  rigidly  enforced  through  the  months  of  May  and 
June,  1866,  but  after  the  Fourth  of  July  the  authorities 
gave  up  its  enforcement,  in  consequence  of  a  decision  by 
Judge  Carctozo  declaring  it  unconstitutional.3  On  Sun- 
day, July  1  st,  two  hundred  and  eighty  injunctions  were 
served  permitting  open  saloons.4  Governor  Fenton,  in 
order  to  settle  the  troublesome  question  at  once,  called 
a  special  term  of  the  Supreme  Court  for  the  first  judi- 
cial district.5 

A  case  was  brought  up  under  this  law  in  which  the 
lower  courts  decided  that  the  law  was  constitutional. 
The  case  was  taken  up  to  the  Court  of  Appeals,  where 
the  lower  court  was  sustained,  in  the  Metropolitan  Board 

1  New  York  World,  Nov.  7,  1866. 

1  Laws  of  New  York,  1866,  C.  578,  vol.  ii,  p.  1242.  "An  Act  to  regu- 
late the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  within  the  Metropolitan  Police  Dis- 
trict of  the  State  of  New  York."  No  one  could  dispose  of  spirituous 
liquors  in  quantities  less  than  five  gallons  at  a  time  without  a  license. 
Only  persons  of  good  moral  character  were  permitted  to  receive 
licenses.  No  liquor  could  be  sold  to  persons  under  eighteen  years  of 
age.  All  places  where  liquors  were  sold,  except  regular  hotels  subject 
to  restriction  contained  in  the  act,  were  required  to  close  between  mid- 
night and  sunrise,  also  on  Sundays.  Provisions  were  made  for  enforce- 
ment, prosecution  and  penalties. 

%  Harper's  Weekly,  Nov.  10,  1866,  p.  706.  *  Ibid. 

6  New  York  Herald,  July  2,  1866. 


124       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [124 

of  Excise  v.  John  Harris  et  al.,  and  in  several  other 
cases.1  Hoffman  and  the  "Ring"  were  forced  to  bear 
the  full  brunt  of  the  attacks  from  the  supporters  of  the 
excise.  Harper  s  Weekly  was  uncompromising :  "It  is 
not  a  pleasant  thing  to  say,  but  it  is  the  strict  truth,  that 
Mr.  Hoffman  is  the  candidate  of  the  '  conservatism  '  of 
the  grog-shops."2  The  Independent  made  it  doubly 
hard  for  Mr.  Hoffman  and  Tammany  Hall  to  ignore  its 
blunt  attack.  "Mr.  Hoffman  is  opposed  to  a  law  which 
closes  the  rum-dens  on  the  Sabbath ;  is  opposed  to  a  law 
which  shuts  up  the  grog-shop  at  midnight ;  and  forbids 
it  to  be  reopened  until  daylight — which  forbids  women 
to  sell  strong  drink,  or  boys  under  eighteen  to  buy  it."  3 
The  sole  argument  which  the  Democrats  advanced  against 
the  attack  was  that  the  harmless  customs  of  a  large 
portion  of  the  population  were  ignored.4 

In  the  eastern  and  southern  counties  of   New  York 
State,  especially  those    in  which  the  patroon  system  of 

1  Metropolitan  Board  of  Excise  v.  John  Harris,  et  at.,  34  N.  Y.,  657. 
The  points  upon  which  the  courts  gave  decisive  dicta  were:  That  the 
legislature  of  the  State  had  a  constitutional  right  to  regulate  and  control 
the  liquor  traffic;  that  neither  the  State  nor  the  United  States  Consti- 
tution places  a  limit  upon  the  legislature  in  its  regulation  of  a  traffic 
which  is  connected  with  public  morals,  safety  and  prosperity;  that  a 
law  which  prohibits  an  indiscriminate  traffic  in  spirituous  liquors,  and 
places  the  trade  under  public  regulation,  violates  no  constitutional  re- 
striction; that  licenses  to  sell  liquor  are  mere  temporary  permits,  giv- 
ing legal  protection  to  what  would  otherwise  be  unlawful,  not  contracts 
between  the  State  and  the  licensee,  giving  the  latter  vested  rights;  and 
further,  that  such  licenses  are  not  property  in  any  legal  or  constitutional 
sense. 

8 Harper 's  Weekly,  Nov.  10,  1866,  p.  706. 

3  The  Independent,  Sept.  27,  1866. 

4 Of  the  up-State  papers,  the  Binghamton  Daily  Republican,  Oct. 
10,  21,  24,  1866,  led  in  the  attack  upon  the  liquor  interests  of  New 
York  City. 


125]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  I2^ 

former  days  had  flourished,  a  revival  of  the  anti-rent1 
agitation  exerted  a  strong  influence  upon  the  campaign 
of  1866.  The  anti-rent  troubles  came  to  a  head  in  the 
town  of  Knox,  Albany  County,  and  spread  along  either 
side  of  the  Hudson,  wherever  lands  were  still  held  under 
the  old  "  lease-hold  "  system.  In  July,  of  1866,  it  became 
necessary  to  detail  a  battalion  of  the  tenth  regiment  of 
militia  to  suppress  the  disturbances,  but  no  fire-arms 
were  used  or  actual  bodily  resistance  given.  The  troops 
were  met  by  a  considerable  body  of  men,  who  b.roke  and 
ran,  nine  prisoners  being  taken.2  Similar  disturbances 
of  a  more  violent  sort  broke  out  in  the  town  of  Berne, 
resulting  in  an  ambuscade  of  Colonel  Walter  S.  Church, 
who  was  connected  with  the  Van  Rensselaer's  by  mar- 
riage, and  had,  as  agent  for  the  owners,  made  himself 
particularly  obnoxious  to  the  lease  holders.3  Colonel 
Church  was  a  local  Democratic  politician  of  some  note. 
This,  together  with  the  fact  that  a  majority  of  the  land 
owners  were  Democrats,  produced  a  strong  reaction  in 
that  portion  of  the  State  against  the  Democrats.  The 
New  York  Times,  in  commenting  on  the  anti-rent 
movement,  said  : 

This  party  again  manifested  its  influence  at  the  polls  on  Tues- 
day last.  Most  of  the  prominent  owners  of  these  lands  are 
Democrats  ....  the  particular  agent  for  the  collection  of  rents 
and  distraints  from  delinquents  together  with  the  sheriff,  who 

1  Originally  started  about  1839.  The  movement  aimed  to  break  the 
onerous  control  of  the  descendants  of  the  Dutch  patroons  over  the 
"lease-hold"  lands  throughout  the  eastern  and  southeastern  counties 
of  the  State. 

*  These  disturbances  continued  throughout  the  summer  and  broke  out 
with  renewed  vigor  in  September.  Vide  Troy  Whig,  Sept.  28,  1866; 
Troy  Times,  Sept.  26,  1866. 

xAppletons  Ann.  Cyc,  1866,  pp.  S43"4- 


126       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [I26 

is  a  Democrat  .  .  .  '.  divided  the  curses  of  the  inhabitants. 
This  feeling:  has  reacted  upon  the  party  of  which  they  are  mem- 
bers and  many  votes  were  lost  in  this  region  to  that  once  all- 
conquering  organization.1 

The  New  Orleans  and  Memphis  massacres,  together 
with  the  pictures  in  Harper  s  Weekly  and  the  letters  of 
Petroleum  V.  Nasby  contributed  powerful  Radical  argu- 
ments to  the  campaign.2 

1  New  York  Times,  Nov.  14,  1866.  For  a  detailed  discussion  of  the 
anti-rent  agitation  see  David  Murray,  The  Anti-Rent  Episode  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  Annual  Report  of  the  Amer.  Hist.  Assoc.,  1896, 
vol.  i,  pp.  130-172;  Albany  Freeholder,  organ  of  Anti-Rent  party,  April, 
1845-54;  Franklin  B.  Hugh,  Gazetteer  of  the  State  of  New  York,  1873; 
Edward  P.  Cheyney,  The  Anti-Rent  Agitation  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  1839-46  (Phila.,  1887),  p.  46;  Senate  Documents,  1835-1851;  As- 
sembly Documents,  1840-1855;  Lincoln,  Messages  from  the  Governors, 
vol.  iv,  p.  413;  Laws  of  New  York,  1846,  C.  274,  vol.  i,  p.  369;  ibid., 
C.  327,  vol.  i,  p.  466;  The  People  v.  Van  Rensselaer  and  others,  9  N. 
Y.  291;  The  People  v.  Clarke,  9  N.  Y.  349. 

iCf.  Harper's  Weekly,  Aug.  25,  1866,  for  pictures  and  account  of  the 
massacres.  See  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  3,  1866,  for  the  report  of  the 
military  commission  which  investigated  the  New  Orleans  massacre. 
Thomas  Nast  was  a  powerful  factor  backed  by  Harper's  Weekly  in 
lampooning  Johnson  with  his  pictures.  One  of  Nast's  most  notable 
caricatures  appeared  September  1,  1866.  Johnson  was  represented  as 
Othello,  saying  to  Iago,  a  discharged  negro  soldier,  "  Dost  thou  mock 
me?"  to  which  Iago  replied:  •'  I  mock  you!  No,  by  Heaven.  Would 
you  could  bear  your  fortunes  like  a  man."  Surrounding  Johnson  are 
pictures  of  Southern  rights—"  What  they  were  "—  i.  e.,  negroes  being 
sold  and  whipped.  The  contrast  with  their  present  condition  was  repre- 
sented by  the  slaughter  at  the  New  Orleans  and  Memphis  massacres. 
Under  the  central  portion,  Johnson  is  represented  as  a  snake  charmer, 
seated  in  oriental  manner  playing  upon  a  reed,  viz.,  the  United  States 
Constitution,  while  before  him  a  C.  S.  A.  rattlesnake  and  a  Northern 
copperhead  snake  are  strangling  and  biting  a  negro.  Chase,  Stanton 
and  Seward,  dressed  in  oriental  garb,  stand  gravely  by.  Placards  sur- 
round Johnson,  bearing  such  sentiments  as  "Treason  is  a  crime  and 
must  be  made  odious,  and  traitors  must  be  punished,"  "Love  thine 
enemies,"  "I  am  your  Moses."  Other  virulent  caricatures  appeared 
in  Harper's  Weekly  on  September  8,  1866,  September  29,  1866,  p.  617, 


127]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  l2y 

The  treatment  of  Union  soldiers  in  the  Southern 
prisons  was  also  a  stimulant  to  fury  against  the  Demo- 
crats.1 The  latter  on  their  part  were  not  slow  to  charge 
Congress  with  a  betrayal  of  the  United  States  Constitu- 
tion in  making  the  ratification  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment a  requirement  before  the  admittance  of  the  late 
Confederate  States. 

Roscoe  Conkling,  who  was  making  what  proved  to  be 
his  last  campaign  for  the  House  of  Representatives,2 
toured  the  State  extensively.  In  his  opening  speech  at 
Utica  on  September  13,  1866,  Conkling  struck  the  key- 
note of  the  Republican  campaign.  He  began  with  the 
statement  that  Reconstruction  was  an  exaggerated  ques- 
tion, artificially  manufactured  by  politicians,  and  a  mere 
distortion  of  reality.  The  commercial,  the  agricultural, 
the  material,  the  social,  even  the  political  prosperity  of 
the  South,  did  not    and   does  not   depend  at   all  upon 

October  27,  1866,  pp.  680-1,  November  3,  1866,  p.  696;  the  last  being 
"  Amphitheatrum  Johnsonianum,"  which  represented  Johnson  as  Nero, 
looking  on  composedly  at  the  "Massacre  of  the  Innocents,"  called  to 
mind  by  the  race  riots  in  New  Orleans  and  Memphis.  For  the  com- 
plete cycle  of  Nast's  pictures  see  Albert  Bigelow  Paine,  Thomas  Nasi 
— His  period  and  his  pictures  (New  York,  1904),  passim. 

1  Assembly  Documents,  vol.  iv,  pp.  358-429,  give  a  detailed  account  of 
the  conditions  in  Southern  hospitals  and  prisons.  The  diary  of  one 
Samuel  Henderson  is  given  in  full  during  his  incarceration  in  Ander- 
son ville: 

"June  23 — Went  down  to  the  creek  to  wash  my  clothes,  but  the  water 
was  so  muddy  and  greasy  that  I  could  not;  this  is  the  water  we  have  to 
drink;  the  rebels  do  all  their  washing  in  it  above,  and  throw  all  the 
slops  from  their  work-house  into  it,"  pp.  420-1. 

' '  July  20— There  was  a  prisoner  shot  to-day  by  one  of  the  rebel  offi- 
cers.    His  offense  was  asking  for  rations,"  p.  422. 

"Dec.  10 — My  weight  before  being  taken  prisoner  was  142  lbs. 
When  I  arrived  at  Annapolis  my  weight  was  55  lbs.,"  p.  429. 

3  Conkling,  in  the  following  January,  1867,  was  elected  to  the  United 
States  Senate  from  New  York,  where  he  served  until  his  resignation  in 
May,  1881. 


128        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [I2g 

whether  members  of  Congress  from  the  South  com- 
mence speaking  and  voting  twelve  months  sooner,  or 
twelve  months  later.  "  They  should  need  to  sow,  they 
had  need  to  plant,  they  had  need  to  build,  they  had  need 
to  mend,  they  had  need  to  heal  ....  in  short,  their  need 
of  needs  was  to  go  to  work."  J 

The  dawn  of  a  new  era  was  gradually  beginning  to 
diffuse  itself  over  the  politics  of  the  State.  Seward  still 
remained  in  the  Cabinet,  but  was  largely  shorn  of  influ- 
ence because  of  his  adherence  to  the  Presidential  policy. 
Seward's  friends  were  either  neutral  or  hostile  to  the 
new  program.  Thurlow  Weed,  through  his  support  of 
the  ticket  representing  the  Philadelphia  principle,  had 
lost  his  control  over  the  political  destinies  of  New  York. 
Neither  Governor  Fenton  nor  Senator  Edwin  D.  Morgan 
were  adapted  for  oratory.2  It  fell  to  Conkling's  share  to 
pull  the  stroke  oar.  He  appealed  especially  to  the 
younger  men  and  gave  to  the  campaign  an  energy  and 
enthusiasm  which  materially  aided  in  the  Republican 
success  in  November.3 

*New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  18,  1866.  Conkling  spoke  in  fourteen 
different  towns.  Alfred  Conkling,  Life  and  Letters  of  Roscoe  Conkling 
(New  York,  1889),  p.  279. 

'New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  24,  1866.  Public  men  from  other  states 
gave  considerable  aid  to  the  Radicals.  Of  these,  the  most  notable  was 
General  Carl  Schurz,  who  bitterly  arraigned  the  President  at  a  large 
meeting  in  Brooklyn. 

'Alfred  R.  Conkling,  Life  and  Letters  of  Roscoe  Conkling,  (a),  p.  27s; 
(b),  p.  278.  Two  extracts  from  Conkling's  speech  at  Mechanics'  Hall, 
Utica,  Sept.  13,  1866,  may  furnish  some  insight  into  his  power.  When 
commenting  on  the  investigation  of  the  Congressional  Reconstruction 
Committee,  he  said:  "  It  prepared  us  to  find  that  nowhere  in  the  South 
was  the  Fourth  of  July  celebrated  except  by  negroes.  It  prevented  our 
being  much  surprised  when  women  and  children  were  shot  down  for 
strewing  flowers  upon  soldier's  graves.  This  happened  in  South  Caro- 
lina, and  James  L.  Orr  says  South  Carolina  is  perfectly  loyal;  but  then 
these  women  and  children  were  black  and  the  tenants  of  those  graves, 


129]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  12g 

For  the  Democrats,  Mayor  Hoffman  toured  the  State. 
Though  not  an  orator,  he  had  a  manner  which  pleased, 
and  he  discussed  constitutional1  principles  in  good  legal 
fashion.  Hoffman  had  worked  his  way  up  through 
New  York  City  politics,  and  as  mayor  of  New  York 
had  made  a  record  which  suited  Tammany.  At  the 
time  of  his  nomination  his  record  had  been  spoken  of 
as  clean  by  the  Times.2  Nevertheless,  Hoffman  did 
not  escape  the  stinging  criticism  of  Horace  Greeley  who, 
charging  him  with  disloyalty,  strongly  intimated  that  he 
had  been  a  Copperhead.3  While  no  open  charge  of  dis- 
honesty was  made  against  him,  he  was  accused  by  the 
Tribune  of  being  "  the  pet,  the  nominee,  the  figure-head, 
of  the  'Ring'  which  so  flagrantly  misrules  and  plunders 
our  city."4  In  confirmation  of  these  attacks,  speaking  of 
Hoffman's  administration  as  mayor,  Gustavus  Myers  has 
written :  "  There  is  little  to  say  of  Hoffman's  administra- 
tion. Frauds  and  thefts  of  every  description  continued 
as  before,  though  it  is  not  possible  to  connect  his  name 
with  any  of  them."4  The  Argus  constituted  itself  a 
special  agent  to  reply  to  Greeley's  attacks,5  but  its 
counter  charges  of  fraud  and  usurpation  failed  to  silence 
the  Radical  press. 

though  white,  died  for  the  Union,  and  they  had  no  epitaph  except  the 
word  '  Unknown.'  "  (a)  In  an  endearing  reference  to  the  President, 
he  said:  "  Not  satisfied  with  conniving  at  the  robbery  and  murder  of 
the  Unionists,  and  the  exaltation  and  reward  of  traitors  at  the  South, 
he  comes  to  buffet  and  slander  the  Union  people  of  the  North  and  to 
blacken  the  memory  of  their  dead."  (b) 

'Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Oct.  n,  13,  15,  1866;  Rhodes, 
vol.  vi,  p.  401;  Alexander,  A  Political  History  of  the  State  of  New 
York  (New  York,  1909),  vol.  iii,  p.  164. 

'  New  York  Times,  Sept.  13,  1866;  also  cf.  supra,  p.  106,  footnote  3. 

'New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  1,  1866. 

*  Gustavus  Myers,  The  History  of  Tammany  Hall,  p.  249. 

'Albany  Argus,  Oct.  5,  1866;  Oct.  15,  1866;  Oct.  16,  1866. 


130       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [130 

During  the  campaign  in  the  central  and  western  coun- 
ties of  the  State  all  was  far  from  peaceful  within  the 
Republican  ranks.  In  Monroe  County  a  permanent  feud 
had  arisen.  Roswell  Hart,  the  Radical  Congressman 
from  the  twenty- eighth  district,  had  been  opposed  for 
renomination  by  a  strong  opposition  candidate,  Lewis 
Selye  by  name.  Both  sides  had  held  separate  nominating 
conventions  and  both  candidates  had  accepted.  This 
led  to  a  very  bitter  local  campaign,  in  which  charges  and 
countercharges  of  bribery  and  fraud  were  common.1 
Mr.  Selye  won  the  election.2  Further,  family  quarrels 
broke  out  in  the  Oswego  and  Cortland  County  Congres- 
sional districts,  to  which  the  Democratic  organs  pointed 
as  an  example  of  the  vaunted  harmony  among  the  Re- 
publicans of  the  State.3  Among  the  State  Democrats, 
Thurlow  Weed  was  given  a  scant  welcome  into  Democ- 
racy. He  was  constantly  watched  for  evidence  of  a  lack 
of  faith.  The  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union  was 
openly  hostile  to  him.  "  Mr.  Weed,  in  the  garb  of  a 
friend,  and  while  professing  alliance  with  the  Democratic 
party,  is  seeking  its  ruin.  .  .  .  He  still  labors,  as  he  has 
always  labored,  to  distinguish  and  divide  Democrats  as 
loyal  or  disloyal  during  the  war."4 

1  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Sept.  6,  t866. 

1  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Nov.  8,  1866. 

3  Albany  Argus,  Oct.  5,  1866. 

*Utica  Morning  Herald,  Sept.  21,  1866;  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and 
Union,  Oct.  12,  1866;  Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  Oct.  II,  1866.  On 
the  occasion  of  Weed's  letter  explaining  why  he  did  not  follow  the 
Times  back  into  the  Union  party  the  Daily  Standard  had  this  to  say: 
"Everything  has  conspired  of  late  to  make  him  fainthearted.  The 
Unionists  have  denied  him  leadership,  the  Democrats  will  have  none  of 
his  counsels.  The  mission  of  political  trimmers  is  gone  in  these 

earnest  times  and  Weed  who  was  never  anything  but  a  political  trim- 
mer, sighs  as  he  sees  his  vocation  depart.  Honest  statesmanship  is 
what  the  country  needs  and  Weed,  who  deals  in  political  drugs  has  none 


131]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  18G6  ^ 

Syracuse  was  again  the  center  of  the  up-State  cam- 
paign, especially  for  the  Democrats.  George  F.  Corn- 
stock,  of  Syracuse,  ex-Chief  Justice  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals,  proved  to  be  a  powerful  factor  for  the  Demo- 
crats in  the  central  portion  of  the  State.  His  arguments 
were  directed  against  the  constitutionality  of  the  Radical 
reconstruction  acts.'  Pruyn  also  supplemented  Hoffman2 
and  Comstock  in  the  central  and  western  portions  of  the 
State.  But  the  cpnservative  influence  of  Pruyn  was  neu- 
tralized by  his  association  with  Hoffman.3  The  forceful 
addresses  of  John  Van  Buren,  which  had  delighted  Dem- 
ocratic audiences  of  the  previous  campaign,  were  missed. 
"  Prince  John,"  as  his  friends  had  called  him,  died  on 
October  14,  1866,  while  returning  from  Europe,  where 
he  had  gone  for  his  health.  His  death  removed  from  the 
field  one  of  the  younger  Democratic  progressives  and 
made  the  way  easier  for  Seymour  to  achieve  the  Demo- 
cratic nomination  in  1868.4 

The  principal  speakers  up-State  for  the  Republicans 
were  Roscoe  Conkling,  Generals  Barlow,  Cochrane  and 

of  the  essence  of  statesmanship  on  hand.  His  friends  are  in  a  bad 

way.  Andrew  Johnson,  whom  he  nominated  at  Baltimore,  has  been 
1  swinging  round  the  cirkle.'  .  His  friend  Raymond  has  been  ex- 

ecuting the  most  miraculous  feats  of  '  ground  and  lofty  tvmbling'  ever 
exhibited  and    has    finally  made*  a  scmersault  in  which    he    has 

landed  far  from  his  mentor  and  guide,  who  vainly  beckons  the  graceful 
acrobat  his  way." 

'Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Unicn,  Oct.  17,  20,  1866. 

'Hoffman  in  all  of  his  addresses  discarded  the  name  Democrat  and 
spoke  of  himself  as  a  National  Unionist. 

'Binghamton  Daily  Republican,  Oct.  24,  t866. 

4  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Unicn,  Oct.  17,  1866.  John  Van 
Buren,  second  son  of  ex-Prerident  Martin  Van  Brren,  was  an  attache 
to  the  legation  at  London,  while  his  father  was  Minister  to  England  in 
1831-2.  John  was  twenty-one  at  the  time  and  had  a  flirtation  with 
Queen  Victoria,  then  a  princess.  It  was  this  instance  that  gave  him 
his  sobriquet,  •'  Prince  John." 


132       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [132 

Woodford.  Their  arguments  in  the  main  were  aimed  to 
prove  that  the  Radical  Congress  was  acting  within  its 
constitutional  rights  in  advocating  the  Congressional 
plan.1  The  President  was  made  the  scapegoat  of  every 
Radical  Republican  orator.  "All  that  his  former  ene- 
mies have  counseled  him  to  do  he  has  done,  or  means  to 
do,  if  possible,"2  was  the  Radical  wail.  In  connection 
with  the  constitutional  arguments  pro  and  con,  the 
Republican  journals  began  the  agitation  in  favor  of  call- 
ing a  State  Constitutional  Convention  the  following  year 
to  discuss  and  propose  changes  in  keeping  with  the 
national  questions.3 

September  elections  in  Maine  and  Vermont4  gave  the 
Republicans  large  majorities.  The  Democrats  had  at- 
tempted to  explain  away  the  September  Republican  suc- 
cesses on  the  ground  that  these  States  were  away  from 
the  beaten  track,  and  that  in  Maine  the  popularity  of 
General  Chamberlain  had  materially  influenced  the  elec- 
tion.5 But  when  the  October  election  results  were 
announced  and  it  was  found  that  Pennsylvania,  Ohio, 
Indiana  and  Iowa6  had  gone  Republican,  the  Democratic 
explanations  were  not  so  profuse. 

The  remainder  of  the  Northern  States,  holding  elec- 
tions in  November,  returned  the  same  indication  of 
public  will.     In  New  York  State,7  with  a  total  vote  for 

'Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  25-27,  1866;  Oct.  15,  1866;  Bing- 
hamton  Daily  Republican,  Oct.  20,  1866;  Rochester  Daily  Democrat, 
Oct.  16,  31,  1866. 

2Utica  Morning  Herald,  Oct.  2j,  1866;  Syracuse  Daily  Journal, 
Oct.  to,  1866. 

8Utica  Morning  Herald,  Oct.  3,  1866. 

4  Tribune  Almanac,  1847,  pp.  49-50. 

'Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Sept.  14,  1866. 

■ Tribune  Almanac,  1867,  pp.  58,  60,  61,  62. 

"* Ibid.,  p.  51. 


133]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  I33 

Governor  of  719,195,"  Governor  Fenton  received  a  13,789 
majority  over  Hoffman.  General  Stewart  L.  Woodford, 
for  lieutenant-governor,  increased  his  majority  over 
Robert  H.  Pruyn  to  15,023.  The  remaining  two  Repub- 
lican candidates  also  increased  their  respective  majorities.2 
The  State  campaign  and  election  were  largely  over- 
shadowed by  national  questions.  No  matter  of  purely 
State  policy  was  alluded  to  in  the  Syracuse  platform. 
In  the  northern,  central  and  western  parts  of  the  State,3 
the  proposition  that  eclipsed  all  other  issues  was  the 
great  national  question  of  the  constitutional  amendment. 
The  results  in  New  York  City  and  the  returns  through- 
out the  State  in  opposition  to  the  City  were  extraordi- 
nary. Hoffman's  majority  of  46,000  in  the  City,  ex- 
ceeded by  9,000  the  Presidential  majority  of  General 
McClellan.  Over  against  this  Democratic  gain  in  the 
City,  Fenton  made  sufficient  gains  upon  his  vote  of  1864 

1  Included  354  scattering. 

'Canal  Commissioner,  Republican,  Stephen  T.  Hoyt,  15,551  majority 
over  National  Unionist  (Dera.),  Wm.  W.  Wright;  State  Prison  In- 
spector, Republican,  John  Hammond,  16,273  majority  over  National 
Unionist  (Dem.),  F.  B.  Gallagher. 

3  Allowing  for  natural  bias  the  Times  gave  an  approximate  prediction 
as  to  the  political  situation  in  New  York  City,  when  it  said  (New  York 
Times,  Nov.  6,  1866):  "The  vote  in  the  City  to-day  will  be  cast  with- 
out much  reference  to  broad  national  issues.  The  opponents  of  the 
Police  Commissioner;  the  advocates  of  unrestricted  liquor  dealing;  those 
who  would  revive  the  old  Fire  Department  and  abolish  the  new;  the 
Anti-Sabbatarians  and  the  bulk  of  those  who  claim  the  privilege  of  in- 
stant naturalization  on  landing  here;  will  do  as  they  have  generally 
done — press  forward  and  record  as  many  votes  as  they  can  for  the  Dem- 
ocratic candidates.  On  the  other  side  a  great  majority  of  the  steady 
advocates  of  municipal  reform  who  believe  that  our  Police  system  works 
well  and  advantageously  for  all  classes;  who  do  not  believe  in  the  re- 
vival of  the  old  Fire  Department,  or  the  old  Police  Department,  but 
who  do  believe  in  the  Health  Commissioner  and  a  stringent  Excise 
Law— will  record  a  steady,  solid  vote  for  Governor  Fenton  and  gener- 
ally for  the  Republican  party." 


I34       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [134 

up-State,  to  defeat  the  "  unterrified "  in  their  metro- 
politan strongholds.1 

The  Democratic  majorities  in  New  York  City  may  be 
readily  accounted  for.  The  obnoxious  legislation  at 
Albany  passed  during  the  previous  winter  by  a  Radical 
Republican  legislature  against  the  liquor  interests  was 
an  incentive  for  that  element  to  present  a  solid  front  for 
Hoffman.  In  addition,  there  were  such  powerful  com- 
binations as  the  "  Ring,"  the  Custom  House  and  the 
Post  Office,  all  of  which  opposed  the  movement  for  a 
further  check  and  balance  system  in  municipal  affairs. 
The  Federal  institutions  in  New  York  exerted  a  strong 
influence  in  favor  of  the  Democrats  through  Johnson's  use 
of  the  spoils  system. 

Although  an  unusually  large  crowd  gathered  in  Print- 
ing House  Square  to  learn  the  returns,  election  day  in 
New  York  City  passed  off  in  comparative  quiet.2  The 
local  elections  for  New  York  County  excited  little  com- 
ment. The  chief  offices  filled  were  those  of  register, 
surrogate,  recorder  and  coroner.  Tammany  Hall  and 
Mozart  Hall3  united  in  a  temporary  armistice  in  order 

1  New  York  Herald,  Nov.  7,  1866. 

2  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  9,  1866. 

'New  York  Herald,  Nov.  7,  1866.  Gustavus  Myers,  The  History  of 
Tammany  Hall,  passim.  New  York  Times,  Nov.  7,  1866.  The  fact 
that  the  Registry  Law  was  in  force  at  this  election,  had  an  undoubted 
tendency  to  decrease  the  amount  of  fraud  at  the  polls.  (1)  However, 
the  papers  mentioned  a  number  of  arrests  for  illegal  voting,  sufficiently 
suggestive  to  give  ample  ground  for  a  belief  as  to  the  existence  of  great 
corruption  in  the  use  of  the  franchise.  (2)  From  the  up-State  reports, 
moreover,  it  would  appear  that  not  all  the  fraud  had  been  committed  in 
New  York  City.  The  Times  made  the  following  comment  Nov.  14, 
1866:  "  From  Rensselaer,  Columbia,  Saratoga  and  Albany  counties  the 
universal  statement  is  that  money  flowed  like  water  .  .  .  Electors  marched 
up  to  the  polls  under  the  convoy  of  some  well  known  ward  politician, 
who  placed  tickets  in  their  hands  as  they  reached  the  ballot  boxes,  and 
after  depositing  their  votes  took  out  his  pocketbook  and  paid  them  .  .  . 


j.35]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  ^ 

to  secure  the  election.  As  a  result  of  the  severe  excise 
laws  they  were  aided  in  their  efforts  by  the  unrest 
among  the  liquor  interests,  wholesale  and  retail,  espe- 
cially the  German  element.  To  defeat  this  coalition, 
Republicans  united  with  the  War  Democrats  to  form  an 
anti-ring  county  ticket.  General  Charles  G.  Halpine, 
a  genuine  War  Democrat,1  was  elected  register.  His 
majority  over  Mr.  McCool,  the  Tammany  and  Mozart 
Hall  candidate,  was  19,091. 2  However,  Gideon  T.  Tucker, 
for  surrogate;  John  K.  Hackett,  for  recorder;  and  Dr. 
Shirmer,  for  coroner,  all  Tammany  and  Mozart  Hall 
candidates,  were  elected  over  their  anti-ring  opponents.3 
The  Republicans  and  Democrats  elected  respectively, 
General  Alexander  Shaler  and  G.  M.  Herman  as  super- 
visors. The  overshadowing  influence  of  the  State  con- 
test no  doubt  detracted  from  the  endeavor  to  oust  the 
Ring  candidates.  All  of  the  Democratic  candidates  for 
Congress  from  New  York  City  were  elected,  which  was 
a  gain  of  three.4      The  Fourth  Congressional  district  in 

before  hundreds  of  people,  without  even  the  mock  decency  of  retiring  to 
one  side."  The  Tribune  after  the  election,  under  the  caption  "Lib- 
erty and  Lager,"  attempted  to  prove  that  the  German  vote  had  not 
gone  against  the  Radicals.     New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  9,  1866. 

'Gen.  Halpine  had  served  throughout  the  Rebellion  as  a  War  Demo- 
crat. He  achieved  considerable  fame  through  his  writings  under  the 
pseudonym  of  "  Private  Miles  O'Reilly,"  which  did  much  to  popularize 
the  Union  cause  with  his  countrymen  by  birth. 

*  Register,  Halpine,  63,552.  McCool,  44,461.  New  York  Tribune, 
Nov.  8,  1866. 

3  Surrogate. 
Anti-Ring.  Tammany  &  Mozart. 

Smith   47,459  Tucker 60,879 

Recorder. 

Sedgwick    47,412  Hackett 61,129 

Coroner. 

Nauman  . .  •. 27,030  Schirmer 72,575 

♦New  York  World,  Nov.  7,  1866. 


136       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [136 

New  York  City  gave  Horace  Greeley  a  sharp  rebuke  for 
his  arraignment  of  the  Ring  by  sending  John  Fox,  his 
Democratic  opponent,  to  Congress  with  a  9,988  majority.1 
But  in  spite  of  this  Greeley  rejoiced,  "  We  can  beat  the 
Ring !  The  defeat  of  Hoffman  went  far  to  insure  this, 
but  the  magnificent  success  of  General  Halpine  renders 
it  a  certainty."2 

The  Radical  majority  in  Congress  remained  in  the 
ascendant,  assuring  the  defeat  of  Johnsonian  doctrines. 
The  Congressional  districts  in  the  State  maintained 
their  Radical  majority,  to  which  was  added  a  gain  of 
three  in  New  York  City,  of  one  in  Brooklyn  and  a  simi- 
lar advance  in  the  Monroe  District.3  New  York  was 
represented  in  Congress  by  twenty  Radicals  and  eleven 
Democrats.4 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  8,  1866.    Greeley,  3,607;  Fox,  13,595. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Second  Session,  Thirty-ninth  Congress. 

Senate.  House  of  Representatives. 

Radicals  42  145 

Democrats  and  Conservatives 10  47 

—  Tribune  Almanac.  1867,  p.  2  et  sec. 

4  Mr.  James  Brcoks's  return  to  Congress  by  the  Democrats  of  the 
Eighth  District,  was  made  notable  by  his  defeat  of  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Cady 
Stanton,  the  first  woman  to  aspire  to  a  seat  in  Congress  upon  a  straight 
Woman  Suffrage  ticket.  The  New  York  delegation  in  the  next  Con- 
gress was: 

1  st  District— Taber,  Democrat. 

2d  "  Barnes,  Democrat. 

3d  "  Robinson,  Conservative.     Democratic  gain. 

4th  "  Fox,  Democrat. 

5th  "  Morrisey,  Democrat. 

6th  V  Stewart,  Conservative.     Democratic  gain. 

7th  "  Chandler,  Democrat. 

8th  "  Brooks,  Democrat. 

9th  "  Wood,  Democrat.     Democratic  gain. 

10th  "  Robertson,  Radical.     Radical  gain, 

nth  "  Van  Wyck,  Radical.     Radical  gain. 


137]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  Yyj 

The  election  left  the  New  York  State  senate  un- 
changed, with  the  exception  of  the  twenty-seventh  dis- 
trict, where  the  vacancy  caused  by  the  resignation  of 
Canal  Commissioner  Hoyt  was  filled  by  John  J.  Wicks. 
This  gave  the  senate  twenty-six  Republicans  to  six 
Democrats.  In  the  assembly  eighty-four  Republicans 
were  elected  to  forty-four  Democrats,  thus  giving  the 
Republicans  a  majority  of  sixty  on  a  joint  ballot.  As 
will  be  shown,  the  election  of  a  Republican  United 
States  Senator  to  succeed  Senator  Harris  was  assured. 

With  no  escape  from  two  years  more  of  Republican 
administration  the  World1  consoled  the  Democratic 
masses  of  the  State,  especially  those  of  New  York  City, 
on  the  splendid  fight  they  had  made  "for  the  true  Union 
cause."     But,  while  it  made  a  plea  for  fair  play,9  it  could 

12th  District— Ketchum,  Radical. 

13th  "  Cornell,  Radical.     Radical  gain. 

14th  '*  Pruyn,  Democrat. 

15th  M  Griswold,  Radical. 

16th  M  Ferris,  Radical. 

17th  "  Hubbard,  Radical. 

18th  **  Marvin,  Radical. 

19th  M  Fields,  Radical. 

20th  "  Laflin,  Radical. 

21st  "  Conkling,  Radical. 

22d  "  Churchill,  Radical. 

23d  "  McCarthy,  Radical. 

24th  "  Pomeroy,  Radical. 

25th  ••  Kelsey,  Radical. 

26th  "  Lincoln,  Radical. 

27th  "  Ward,  Radical. 

28th  "  Selye,  Radical. 

29th  "  Van  Horn,  Radical. 

30th  "  Humphrey,  Dernocrat. 

31st  "  Van  Arnam,  Radical. 

—New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  9,  1866. 

1  New  York  World,  Nov.  7,  1866. 

■  New  York  World,  Nov.  8,  1866.     "  By  means  of  registry  laws,  ex- 


138       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [138 

not  resist  the  threat  that  "  if  there  is  to  be  peace  between 
us,  let  the  Albany  legislators  try  an  entirely  different 
policy."1  James  Gordon  Bennett  reminded  the  public 
that  he  had  predicted  the  election  of  Governor  Fenton, 
because  of  the  principle  for  which  the  latter  stood. 
"  Governor  Fenton  is  elected  by  a  vote  just  large  enough 
to  express  the  State's  endorsement  of  that  policy,  and 
just  small  enough  to  show  that  it  is  on  that  issue  alone, 
despite  his  own  weakness  and  imbecility,  that  he  has 
been  successful."2 

The  leading  Republican  organs  were  a  unit  against  the 
imputation  of  the  World  that  "  The  recent  elections  have 
been  carried  by  the  Radicals  on  false  pretences,"  as 
"  deceitful  maneuvers  preliminary  to  the  Presidential  elec- 
tion "  through  which  they  may  say  "whether  the  South- 
ern electoral  votes  shall  be  counted."3  The  self-evident 
moral  of  the  election  for  the  Southerners,  seen  through 
Republican  eyes,  was  to  submit  to  the  inevitable  and 
ratify  the  amendment.4 

The   comments   of  the   State    journals   were   various. 

cise  laws  and  commissioners  depriving  us  of  local  freedom,  they  hoped 
to  swell  the  Radical  vote,  but  it  has  had  a  directly  opposite  effect.  Why 
not  try  another  course?  Treat  us  fairly,  deal  justly  by  us,  and  perhaps 
this  widening  chasm  between  the  city  and  State  may  be  bridged. 
Things  cannot  go  along  as  at  present.  The  city  will  not  consent— can- 
not consent  to  this  perpetual  tyranny  of  the  rural  districts." 
xIbid.,  Nov.  8,  1866. 

2  New  York  Herald,  Nov.  8,  1866.  Bennett  neutralized  his  influence 
with  the  Radicals  and  Conservative  Republicans  by  denouncing  the 
excise.  The  World  (a)  and  the  Herald  (b)  had  an  amusing  post- 
election clash;  the  former  taunted  the  latter  with  failure  to  exert  any 
influence  upon  the  election,  which  was  hotly  denied,  (a)  New  York 
World,  Nov.  7,  1866.     (b)  New  York  Herald,  Nov.  8,  1866. 

3  New  York  World,  Nov.  8,  1866. 

*  New  York  Herald,  Nov.  8,  1866:  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  9,  1866: 
New  York  Times,  Nov.  9,  1866. 


139]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  ^ 

The  Democratic  or  National  Unionist  organs  found  it 
difficult  to  adjust  themselves  to  defeat.  Mr.  Cassidy 
of  the  Argus  suggested  that  the  mission  of  Democracy 
was  to  hasten  the  national  cure  by  precipitating  the 
crisis.1  The  Argus,  with  the  Hudson  Register,  the  New- 
burgh  Press,  the  Troy  Press  and  the  Utica  Daily  Observer, 
devoted  their  editorial  attention  to  showing  that  the  Re- 
publicans had  used  large  sums  in  the  State  and  Con- 
gressional elections.2  These  charges  were  rebutted  by 
claims  of  heavy  bribery  in  the  Democratic  districts  and 
New  York  City.  The  Rochester  Daily  Democrat  gave 
Messrs.  Weed,  Seward,  Pruyn  and  Cassidy  the  credit  for 
furnishing  the  major  portion  of  the  National  Unionist 
funds.3  The  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union  was  the 
least  depressed  of  all  the  Democratic  journals.  "  We 
have  met  the  enemy  and  we  are  truly  theirs,"  read  the 
graceful  tribute;  "Truth  has  once  more  been  crushed  to 
earth,  but  we  have  the  proverbial  assurance  that  it  will 
yet  rise  again  and  prevail."4 

The  signal  failure  of  the  Democratic  and  Conservative 
coalition,  under  the  guise  of  the  National  Unionist  party, 
gave  the  Republican  papers  rich  food  for  editorial  reflec- 
tion.5 "  Loyalty  must  rule  and  traitors  take  back  seats."6 
"  Democracy  has  received  an  opportunity  to  unbosom 
itself.  There  is  a  chance  for  the  display  of  its  righteous 
indignation."7     "New  York  State  and  the  country  have 

1  Albany  Argus,  Nov.  8,  1866.  Cf.  Hudson  Register,  Nov.  7,  1866, 
et  seq.;  Newburgh  Press,  Nov.  7,  1866.  et  seq.;  Troy  Press,  Nov.  7, 
1866,  et  sea. 

1  Utica  Daily  Observer,  Nov.  9,  1866. 

'Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Nov.  8,  1866. 

4  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Nov.  8,  1866. 

*  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Oct.  16,  1866;  Nov.  8,  1866. 

'Binghamton  Daily  Republican ,  Nov.  10,  1866. 

7  Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  Nov.  7,  1866. 


I4o       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [140 

escaped  from  a  dictator."  x  "  Mr.  Johnson — take  heed."2 
These  sentences  give  the  gist  of  the  Republican  senti- 
ment. At  greater  length  the  Buffalo  Express  declared 
that  "  the  voice  of  the  people  has  been  overwhelmingly 
declared  against  Andrew  Johnson,  his  '  policy,'  his  pet 
rebels,  his  '  pseudo-conservative  ■  ring  of  office-hunting 
politicians  and  the  revarnished  Democratic  party  to  which 
he  has  returned  as  a  dog  to  his  vomit." 3  Carroll  E.  Smith 
confined  his  remarks  chiefly  to  the  election  on  the  State : 
"The  corrupt  practices  of  the  Common  Council  cham- 
bers of  the  metropolis  will  not  be  transferred  to  the 
larger  sphere  of  the  legislative  halls  at  Albany."4  The 
Albany  Evening  Journal  confined  its  views  to  still  nar- 
rower space.  It  advised  the  Conservatives  and  War 
Democrats  of  the  metropolis  that  they  still  had  some 
cause  for  thanksgiving  that  the  "  intelligence  and  patriot- 
ism of  the  rural  districts  "  had  saved  the  State  from  the 
social  vandals."5 

The  New  York  City  Charter  Election  of  i860 

The  State  elections  were  hardly  a  matter  of  history 
before  the  local  politicians  of  New  York  City  began  to 
prepare  for  the  City  Charter  election,  which  was  held 
on  December  4,  1866.  The  leading  office  was  that  of 
comptroller  of  the  City;  in  all  there  was  a  total  of  ninety- 
two  offices  to  be  filled.6     The  number  of  candidates  for 

1  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Nov.  8,  1866. 

2  Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal,  Nov.  7,  1866. 

3  Buffalo  Express,  Nov.  9,  1866. 

4  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Nov.  7,  1866. 

5  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Nov.  8,  1866. 

6  Nine  aldermen,  an  entire  board  of  councilmen,  twenty-four  in  num- 
ber, seven  school  inspectors,  and  two  school  trustees  in  each  ward, 
forty-four  in  all. 


I4l]  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  14I 

office  created  considerable  interest  in  each  ward,  but  on 
the  whole  the  campaign  proved  dull.  The  chief  interest 
centered  in  the  office  of  comptroller.  Matthew  T.  Bren- 
nan,  the  incumbent,  despite  great  pressure  brought  by 
the  Ring,  refused  to  accept  a  renomination.1  Brennan 
had  been  vigorously  assailed  by  the  Republican  organs* 
and  the  Citizens'  Association  for  malfeasance  in  office. 
Charges  of  criminal  misappropriation  of  funds  had  been 
brought  against  him,  to  investigate  which  Governor 
Fenton  appointed  a  commission.  Comptroller  Brennan 
denied  these  charges3  in  a  long  letter  of  justification,  and 
brought  charges  of  corrupt  practices  against  the  "young 
lawyers"4  in  charge  of  the  Citizens'  Association. 

Although  Greeley  had  demanded  a  Democrat  for  the 
anti-ring  candidate,5  the  Republican  party  selected  Judge 
Richard  Kelly,  a  man  of  integrity  and  independent  ten- 
dencies.6    Tammany  and  Mozart  Hall  chose  a  loyal  son 

•New  York  World,  Nov.  17,  1866.  The  most  flagrant  charge  against 
him  was  the  presentation,  without  authority  of  law,  of  $50,000  from  the 
Treasury  as  a  "  testimonial  "  to  Orison  Blunt  for  his  *'  patriotic  services 
in  having  the  quota  of  soldiers  due  from  the  city,  in  that  dark  hour  of 
our  country's  peril,  reduced  nearly  one- half."  New  York  Tribune, 
Nov.  28,  1866. 

'New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  28,  1866. 

'Brennan  claimed  that  his  innocence  had  been  proven  beyond  doubt 
in  the  case  brought  against  Corporation  Counsel  Develin. 

♦New  York  World,  Nov.  20,  1866. 

5  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  12,  1866. 

•Bennett  in  his  issue  of  Dec.  2,  1866,  ridicules  Greeley  for  his  former 
and  present  opinion  of  the  character  of  the  Republican  candidate.  The 
Herald  took  little  interest  in  the  campaign  (New  York  Herald,  Dec. 
2,  1866)  because  Bennett  thought  the  candidates  were  all  equally  bad. 

Greeley  threw  himself  open  to  further  ridicule,  later,  by  his  high 
recommendation  of  George  G.  Barnard  as  a  possible  candidate. 

The  Times  spoke  of  Kelly  as  a  man  "of  energy  and  good  adminis- 
trative ability."  Mr.  Kelly  had  held  the  office  of  police  justice  for 
several  years.  In  1863  he  was  re-elected  in  a  district  usually  giving 
about  a  4000  Democratic  majority. 


1 42       POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [I42 

in  Richard  B.  Connolly,1  of  whom  we  shall  hear  more. 
The  other  Democratic  organizations  were  divided  be- 
tween Richard  B.  Connolly  and  Police  Justice  Michael 
Connolly,2  the  irregular  Democratic  candidate.  The  Citi- 
zens' Association  put  up  no  regular  candidate.  Except 
the  Tribune,  the  Republican  papers  in  the  City  took  little 
interest  in  the  affairs  of  the  campaign.3  The  campaign 
was  carried  on  at  small  ward  meetings.  The  main  de- 
mand from  the  Radicals,  Conservatives  and  Independent 
Democrats  was  for  an  honest  administration  of  the  City's 
finances,  while  the  Democrats  hurled  back  the  charges 
of  dishonesty. 

Public  interest  on  election  day  was  unusually  slight. 
This  fact  is  shown  by  the  total  vote  for  comptroller, 
which  numbered  only  71,595.*  This  was  a  trifle  over  half 
the  total  vote  polled  for  the  Governor  one  month  pre- 
vious. The  Tammany  candidate,  Richard  B.  Connolly, 
as  most  expected,  was  elected.  His  majority  over  Rich- 
ard Kelly,  the  Republican  candidate,  was  2,o66.5  The 
reason  assigned  for  the  low  Democratic  vote  was  that 
the  impression  prevailed  among  them  that  the  Albany 
legislature  intended  to  nullify  the  result  of  the  election 
by  a  complete  reorganization 6  of  the  financial  department 
of  New  York  City.     Among  the  better  class  of  citizens 

1  New  York  Times,  Dec.  2.  1866.  Richard  B.  Connolly  had  held  the 
office  of  county  clerk  for  two  terms  and  had  been  twice  elected  to  the 
State  senate.  He  was  regarded  by  his  associates  as  a  "good-fellow" 
but  uncertain. 

1  New  York  Times,  Dec.  3,  1866. 

3  New  York  Tribune,  Dec.  5,  1866. 

4  New  York  Tribune,  Dec.  5,  1866. 

5 Ibid.  The  Tribune,  Nov.  12,  1866,  said  of  him:  "  He  is  a  man  of 
decided  shrewdness  and  energy,  widely  popular,  and  a  determined  foe 
to  the  corruptionists." 

6  New  York  World,  Dec.  5,  1866. 


1 43  J  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1866  j^ 

of  all  parties  the  sentiment  appeared  current  that  it  mat- 
tered little  what  men  filled  the  City  offices — that  whatever 
was  the  political  complexion  of  the  office-holder,  they 
were  all  involved  in  a  system  of  public  plunder.1 

Apropos  of  the  City  elections  the  World  complacently 
remarked,  "  Our  citizens  are  sure  of  an  able,  honest  and 
economical  administration  of  the  Comptrollership."2 
Greeley  assured  himself  that  "  The  lesson  of  defeat,  if 
well  studied,  may  be  applied  at  some  future  time  to  a 
contest  in  earnest  and  a  victory  therefore  assured."3 
Of  the  nine  aldermen  elected,  three  were  Republicans 
and  the  rest  Democrats.  Although  in  a  hopeless  mi- 
nority, Don  Alonzo  Cushman,  a  wealthy  and  respected 
merchant,  with  William  B.  White  and  Eugene  Ward,  both 
prominent  anti-fraud  men,  gave  the  Board  of  Aldermen 
"  an  element  of  intelligence  to  which  it  has  been  almost 
a  stranger."4 

1  New  York  Times,  Dec.  3,  1866. 

1  New  York  World,  Dec.  5,  i8£6. 

5  New  York  Tribune,  Dec.  5,  i856.  4 Ibid. 


CHAPTER  VI 
The  Senatorial  Election  of  1867. 

The  Chicago  Times1  of  November  12,  1866,  asks  the 
question:  "  Shall  the  Democratic  Party  Die  or  Live?" 
Subsequent  events  have  proved  that  there  was  never  a  ques- 
tion of  the  permanent  disruption  of  the  Democratic  Party. 
But,  to  the  Democrats  throughout  the  nation,  and  especially 
in  New  York  State,  the  question  as  to  their  solidity  was  a 
serious  one,  as  it  has  been  at  later  times. 

The  fact  that  a  Republican  legislature  had  been  returned, 
immediately  centered  public  eyes  upon  the  campaign  for  a 
successor  to  Ira  Harris  in  the  United  States  Senate.  The 
political  pot  among  the  various  factions  of  the  Republican 
Party  was  soon  boiling.  The  field  narrowed  down  to  six 
contestants.  The  editor  of  the  Tribune,  ever  a  candidate 
for  office,2  was  among  the  first  to  announce  his  candidacy. 
In  the  Newburg  Journal  one  finds  a  letter  from  Horace 
Greeley  dated  November  14,  1866,  in  which  he  says:  "I 
shall  certainly  accept  the  Senatorship,  and  endeavor  to  dis- 
charge its  duties  should  I  be  elected.  And  I  shall  be  grati- 
fied to  learn  that  our  newly  chosen  Legislature  shall  judge 
me  the  man  for  the  place."  8 

Foremost  among  the  Republican  candidates  was  Charles 

1  Quoted  in  New  York  Times,  Nov.  15,  1866. 

2  He  had  just  been  badly  defeated  for  Congress  in  the  Fourth  dis- 
trict by  Mr.  John  Fox.  However,  it  is  no  more  than  fair  to  Greeley 
to  state  that  he  did  not  expect  an  election,  nor  did  anyone  else,  for 
the  district  was  overwhelmingly  Democratic. 

8  Newburg  Journal,  Nov.  15,  1866.  Dated  from  the  office  of  the 
Tribune,  on  Nov.  14,  1867. 

144  [J44 


I4-J  THE  SENATORIAL  ELECTION  OF  1867  ^ 

J.  Folger  formerly  a  county  judge  and  at  that  time  the 
president  and  leader  of  the  State  Senate  where  he  had 
served  for  a  number  of  years.  Folger  "  was  an  excellent 
lawyer,  and  impressive  speaker,  earnestly  devoted  to  the 
proper  discharge  of  his  duties,  and  of  extraordinarily  fine 
personal  appearance.  .  .  .  He  was  greatly  beloved  and  ad- 
mired, yet,  with  all  his  fine  and  attractive  qualities,  modest, 
and  even  diffident,  to  a  fault."  * 

Senator  Ira  Harris  was  graduated  from  Union  College 
with  first  honors  in  1824.  He  was  elected  to  the  State 
legislature  in  1844  and  was  a  member  of  the  constitutional 
convention  in  1846.  In  the  fall  of  1846,  he  was  sent  to 
the  New  York  Senate,  but  in  the  spring  resigned  his  place 
for  a  seat  on  the  bench  of  the  State  Supreme  Court.  He 
was  re-elected  for  eight  years  in  185 1.  Beating  such  worthy 
competitors  as  William  M.  Evarts  and  Horace  Greeley,  he 
was  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate  for  New  York  in 
1 86 1,  where  he  became  a  close  personal  friend  of  President 
Lincoln.  While  his  service  in  the  United  States  Senate 
was  not  conspicuous,  he  was  noted  for  his  industry.2 

Roscoe  Conkling  grew  up  in  an  atmosphere  of  law  and 
politics.8    He  had  great  mental  capacity  but  small  desire  for 

1  S.  R.  Harlow,  S.  C.  Hutchins,  Life  Sketches  of  State  Officers, 
Senators  and  Assemblymen  of  New  York  in  1868,  pp.  81-4.  Folger 
later  became  Chief  Justice  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  and  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  under  President  Arthur. 

*  History  of  the  Bench  and  Bar  New  York,  (New  York,  1897),  vol. 
i»  P-  354-  The  World,  after  appreciating  Senator  Harris  for  the  in- 
tegrity of  his  private  character  and  upright  citizenship,  says :  u  But  he 
has  little  energy  either  of  mind  or  character,  no  breadth,  no  capacity 
for  leadership,  no  strong  grasp  of'  any  great  subject,  nor  even  any 
of  that  stirring,  inquisitive  activity  by  which  mediocre  talents  are 
sometimes  enabled  to  act  a  prominent,  though  not  a  great  part  in 
public  transactions."     New  York  World,  Jan.  10,  1867. 

8  Alfred  R.  Conkling,  Life  and  Letters  of  Roscoe  Conkling,  pp.  7-12. 
Conkling's  father  had  been  United  States  District  Judge  for  twenty- 
seven  years. 


I46        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [146 

the  academic  halls.  His  desire  for  college  was  ever  topped 
by  an  anxiety  for  real  endeavor.  He  followed  his  father's 
profession,  and  was  admitted  to  the  bar  before  he  was  quite 
twenty-one.1  Shortly  after  he  was  appointed  to  fill  a 
vacancy  in  the  office  of  district  attorney  of  Oneida  County, 
and  was  renominated  as  his  own  successor  in  the  fall. 
Under  protest  his  friends  nominated  and  elected  him  mayor 
of  Utica  in  1858.  The  following  autumn,  without  solicita- 
tions on  his  part,  he  was  offered  the  nomination  for  Con- 
gress. He  was  renominated  four  times  for  the  same  posi- 
tion, twice  successfully.2 

Noah  Davis,  after  his  admission  to  the  bar  in  1841, 
formed  a  partnership  with  Sanford  E.  Church  at  Albion, 
New  York.  In  1857  he  was  appointed  by  Governor  King 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  New  York,  an  office  to  which  he 
was  twice  re-elected.3  While  the  World  accredited  him 
with  being  a  "jurist  of  more  than  ordinary  ability",  still  it 
prejudiced  his  cause  by  urging  that  he  was  "  a  Judge  who, 
while  in  office,  with  all  before  him  of  theory  and  example 
to  advise  to  the  contrary,  has  'attended  political  conven- 
tions and  has  been  active  as  a  politician."  4 

Lyman  Tremaine  had  held  local  offices  and  in  1847  was 
elected  county  judge  but  refused  the  certificate  of  election 
because  of  fraud  in  the  voting.  In  1857  he  was  elected 
attorney-general  on  the  Democratic  ticket.  Joining  the 
Unionist  ranks  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War,  he  was 
nominated  by  them  for  lieutenant-governor  in  1862,  and 
was  elected  to  the  Assembly  in  1865.     The  conviction  of 

1  Alfred  R.  Conkling,  op.  cit.,  p.  644. 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  644-5.  The  World,  Jan.  9,  1867,  placed  Roscoe  Conkling 
and  Charles  J.  Folger  in  an  intellectual  class  beyond  all  others  named 
in  the  Senatorial  race. 

%The  National  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biography,  vol.  i,  p.  236. 

*  New  York  World,  Jan.  9,  1867. 


147]  THE  SENATORIAL  ELECTION  OF  1867  ^y 

Tweed  was  largely  due  to  his  ability  as  a  lawyer.1  When 
Mr.  Tremaine  withdrew  from  the  Senatorial  race  he  gave 
Conkling  his  support.2 

A  seventh  candidate  was  suggested  by  a  number  of 
papers — George  William  Curtis,  editor  of  Putnam's  Maga- 
zine and  of  Harper's  Weekly.  Curtis  was  a  distinguished 
student  and  litterateur.  As  a  delegate  to  the  national  con- 
ventions of  i860  and  1864,  he  had  been  in  active  connection 
with  national  movements  in  politics.  In  the  latter  year  he 
had  failed  of  an  election  to  Congress  upon  the  Union  ticket. 
Although  expecting  defeat,  he  had  used  his  candidacy  in 
1864  to  strengthen  Lincoln.3  In  the  election  of  1866,  he 
was  chosen  as  a  delegate-at-large  to  the  New  York  State 
Constitutional  Convention. 

The  above  gentlemen  formed  the  nucleus  for  one  of  the 
most  intense  and  interesting  Senatorial  campaigns  in  the 
history  of  our  State.  It  should  be  stated  in  passing  that 
the  candidacies  of  Supreme  Court  Justice  Ransom  Balcom, 
of  Binghamton ;  Mr.  Calvin  T.  Hulburd,4  of  St.  Lawrence 
County,  a  politician  of  some  local  note;  and  Mr.  Thomas 
G.  Alvord,5  the  Onondaga  Chief,  were  not  seriously  consid- 
ered outside  of  a  few  respective  friends.  The  suggested 
services  and  abilities  of  the  several  candidates  were  suffi- 
cient to  insure  a  contest  worthy  of  the  name.  It  was  the 
death  grapple  between  the  old  and  the  new  elements  in  the 
Republican  Party. 

Mr.  Greeley's  early  position  of  vantage  in  the  Senatorial 

1  The  National  Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biography,  op.  cit.,  pp.  236, 
et  seq. 

1  New  York  Herald,  Jan.  8,  1867. 

•  Cary,  George  William  Curtis  (New  York,  1894),  pp.  183-5. 

4  New  York  World,  Jan.  5,  1867. 

6  The  New  York  Herald,  Jan.  10,  1867,  mentions  that  Alvord  is  still 
in  the  fight  with  ten  or  twelve  votes  pledged. 


I48        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [I4g 

fight  was  blasted  by  his  candid  statement  to  the  effect  that 
he  desired  general  amnesty.1  The  revengeful  class  among 
the  Radicals  at  once  dropped  his  candidacy  from  any  con- 
sideration which  they  may  have  given  to  it.  George  Wil- 
liam Curtis,  foreseeing  the  result,  "  declined  absolutely  "  2 
to  enter  into  a  combination  with  Davis  to  beat  Conkling. 
Before  the  caucus,  Curtis  withdrew  his  name  in  favor  of 
Conkling.  Realizing  the  futility  of  his  own  candidacy, 
Charles  J.  Folger,  also,  withdrew,  preferring  to  preside 
over  the  caucus,  so  that  the  duty  of  seconding  Conklings 
nomination  was  placed  with  Andrew  D.  White.* 

The  belief  among  those  not  interested  in  any  of  the  can- 
didates veered  towards  the  opinion  that  nothing  short  of 
the  unexpected  could  throw  the  election  to  Judge  Harris 
for  the  second  time.  The  friends  of  Senator  Harris  took 
a  much  bolder  and  more  active  course  in  this  campaign 
than  when  he  was  chosen  in  1861.4  For  obvious  reasons  it 
was  foreseen  that  if  Harris  was  not  chosen  on  the  first 
ballot,  his  supporters  would  gradually  melt  away.  This 
was  what  happened. 

Between  Davis  and  Conkling  the  odds,  to  use  sporting 
parlance,  were  slightly  in  Davis'  favor  without  any  appar- 
ent reason.  Although  the  personal  qualities  of  Judge  Davis 
were  high  and  universally  admitted,  still  at  that  time  he  had 
none  of  those  claims  founded  upon  sacrifice  and  long  ser- 

1  New  York  Sun,  Jan.  11,  1867. 

'Cary,  op.  cit.,  p.  193. 

3  Autobiography  of  Andrew  D.  White,  vol.  i,  p.  135. 

*  New  York  World,  Jan.  9,  1867.  The  World  put  it:  "Then  [1861] 
his  friends,  with  great  sagacity,  meekly  stood  aside,  tendering  their 
kindest  regards  to  both  Messrs.  Evarts  and  Greeley,  admiring  their 
strength  of  wind  and  muscle,  praising  the  dexterity  with  which  they 
pounded  each  other,  and  suggested  their  own  camp  as  a  quiet  and 
pleasant  resting  place"  .  .  . 


I49]  THE  SENATORIAL  ELECTION  OF  1867  I^g 

vice  for  the  common  cause.1  However,  Davis  had  the 
speaker  of  the  Assembly  on  his  side.2  It  was  claimed  that 
the  commitee  which  handled  the  nomination  was  so  con- 
structed as  to  lend  additional  strength  to  Davis.3  The  quiet 
air  of  confidence  assumed  by  the  friends  of  Davis  soon 
wore  off,  for  Roscoe  Conkling,  who  had  been  proposed  for 
the  vacancy  by  the  press  of  the  State  during  the  previous 
December,4  proved  to  have  the  support  of  the  younger  and 
more  progressive  element  in  the  party. 

The  attitude  of  Governor  Fenton  in  the  campaign  was 
one  which  puzzled  many.  It  was  a  natural  inference,  ad- 
vanced by  practically  all,  that  he  wished  the  nomination  of 
a  candidate  from  the  east — thus  to  prepare  the  way  for 
himself  two  years  later  in  the  west.  In  reality  he  was 
forced  to  favor  Davis  of  the  west  in  order  to  thwart  the 
rise  of  Conkling.  Mr.  Conkling  made  a  serious  error,  at 
first,  in  his  canvass.  He  believed  that  the  apparent  sup- 
port of  Davis  by  Fenton  was  only  a  blind,  and  that  Fenton 
really  favored  Senator  Harris.  Hence,  the  Conkling  can- 
vass was  conducted  on  a  basis  of  Conkling  versus  Harris. 
It  was  not  long,  however,  before  some  of  Conkling's  friends 
discovered  their  mistake.  Conkling  refused  to  believe  it 
until  the  caucus  was  on.  It  was  claimed  after  the  election 
that  five  or  six  Senators,  with  an  equal  number  of  Assem- 
blymen, cast  their  votes  with  the  purpose  of  punishing  the 
Governor,  a  thing  they  would  not  have  done  under  other 
circumstances.5    "  The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  the  real  contest 

1  The  Democratic  estimate  of  Judge  Davis  was  meant  to  be  all  in- 
clusive. What  his  qualifications  were  the  World  could  not  describe, 
"  the  political  microscope  being  an  instrument  with  which  we  seldom 
have  time  to  amuse  ourselves."     New  York  World,  Jan.  10,  1867. 

*  New  York  Times,  Jan.  12,  1867.  8  Ibid. 

4  Alfred  R.  Conkling,  Life  and  Letters  of  Roscoe  Conkling,  p.  285. 

8  New  York  World,  Jan.  12,  1867. 


I50        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [150 

was  not  Conkling  and  Davis,  but  Fenton  and  anti- 
Fen  ton."  1  Governor  Fenton  realized  that  the  success  of 
Conkling  would  be  a  death-blow  to  his  own  political  future. 
Although  the  Governor  and  his  friends  preferred  Senator 
Harris  as  more  amenable  to  discipline,  still  they  threw 
their  interests  on  the  side  of  Judge  Davis  in  the  hope  of 
breaking  the  Conkling  combination.  It  was  not  until 
Conkling's  friends  came  to  a  full  realization  of  this  in  the 
caucus,  that  sufficient  headway  was  made  to  secure  success. 

Another  factor  in  the  canvass  was  the  enmity  engen- 
dered among  the  friends  of  ex-Lieutenant-Governor  Al- 
vord  and  Mr.  Bruce  against  Fenton,  to  whom  they  ascribed 
the  defeat  of  Alvord  and  Bruce  for  renomination  at  Syra- 
cuse.2   They  wished  to  have  revenge  on  Fenton. 

Crowded  galleries  greeted  the  caucus  when  it  assembled 
at  seven  o'clock  on  the  evening  of  January  ioth.  Senator 
Low  called  the  assemblage  to  order  and  nominated  Senator 
Charles  F.  Folger  as  chairman.  The  roll  call  found  every 
member  present  with  the  exception  of  one  Senator.3  It  had 
been  arranged  for  Ellis  Roberts,4  an  able  editor  from 
Conkling's  Assembly  district,  to  present  the  latter's  name. 
In  his  speech  Mr.  Roberts  argued  that  "  the  great  State  of 
New  York,  which  had  been  so  long  silent  in  the  highest 
councils  of  the  Nation,  demanded  a  voice  ".5    The  greatest 

1  New  York  World,  Jan.  12,  1867. 

■  It  was  an  open  question  as  to  how  long  the  Syracuse  and  Oneida 
interests  could  work  together  smoothly. 

•  108  members  answered.  Senator  Parsons  was  confined  to  bed  and 
allowed  to  vote  by  proxy. 

4  Roberts  had  graduated  from  Yale  with  high  honors.  He  threw 
the  strength  of  his  paper,  the  Utica  Morning  Herald,  into  the  cam- 
paign with  such  ardor  and  ability,  that  he  was  able  to  line  up  most  of 
the  Republican  up-State  papers  for  Conkling. 

s  Autobiography  of  Andrew  D.  White,  vol.  i,  p.  135. 


I5I]  THE  SENATORIAL  ELECTION  OF  186?  I5i 

outburst  of  the  evening  occurred  upon  the  mention  of  "  a 
voice  "-1  Mr.  R.  L.  Burrows,  of  Erie,  then  placed  in 
nomination  Judge  Davis.  This  speech,  too,  was  powerful, 
but  it  was  noticeable  that  Mr.  Burrows  rested  his  claims 
for  Davis  upon  the  staunch  Republicanism  of  the  district 
from  which  Judge  Davis  came,  rather  than  on  the  ground 
of  past  services  such  as  had  been  pointed  to  in  connection 
with  Mr.  Conkling.  Mr.  Burrows  urged  that  during  the 
whole  history  of  New  York  there  had  never  been  a  United 
States  Senator  chosen  by  any  party  from  a  portion  of  the 
State  west  of  Cayuga  Bridge.2 

Mr.  Smith,  of  Albany,  placed  Senator  Harris  in  nomina- 
tion, praising  him  for  his  character  and  past  services. 
Horace  Greeley  was  nominated  by  Mr.  Travis,  who  de- 
clared that  the  Republican  Party  owed  more  to  Mr.  Greeley 
than  to  any  other  living  man.  Mr.  Travis  also  stated  that 
he  made  the  nomination  without  consulting  Greeley,  for 
the  latter  kept  away  from  Albany  believing  that  the  office 
should  seek  the  man  and  not  the  man  the  office.9  A  friend 
nominated  Judge  Ransom  Balcom,  of  Binghamton. 

The  nominations  having  been  completed,  Mr.  Parker,  of 
Cayuga,  at  once  moved  for  the  informal  ballot.  Senator 
White  and  Assemblymen  Tarbox  and  Shotts,  acting  as 
tellers,  found  Conkling  in  the  lead  with  one  vote.  The 
Davis  men  looked  jubilant  over  his  strength.     The  sup- 

1  As  indicative  of  the  general  desire  for  "  a  voice "  in  the  national 
councils  we  may  quote  a  reply  made  by  Ezra  Cornell,  founder  of 
Cornell  University,  after  a  visit  to  Washington.  "  While  at  the  Capitol 
I  was  ashamed  of  the  State  of  New  York:  one  great  question  after 
another  came  up:  bills  of  the  highest  importance  were  presented  and 
discussed  by  Senators  from  Ohio;  Vermont,  Missouri,  Indiana,  Iowa 
and  the  rest:  but  from  New  York  never  a  word."  Autobiography  of 
Andrew  D.  White,  op.  cit.,  p.  133. 

•  New  York  Herald,  Jan.  11,  1867. 

•New  York  Sun,  Jan.  11,  1867. 


I52        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [152 

porters  of  Conkling  and  Harris  scattered  and  vied  with 
one  another  in  canvassing  for  votes.  In  the  midst  of  the 
confusion  Mr.  Travis  withdrew  the  name  of  Horace 
Greeley.1  A  motion  for  a  second  informal  ballot  was 
changed  by  amendment  to  call  for  a  formal  vote.  This 
move,  forced  by  the  Davis  contingent,  gave  his  supporters 
additional  hope.  On  this  vote  Davis  drew  forty-one  votes 
to  thirty-nine  for  Conkling.  It  was  evident  that  the  friends 
of  Senator  Harris  were  wavering.  By  the  next  ballot  the 
excitement  had  increased  to  fever  heat.  The  situation  be- 
tween Conkling  and  Davis  shifted  slightly  in  favor  of  the 
former  by  one  ballot.  On  the  next  vote,  big  gains  were 
made  at  the  expense  of  Harris  by  both  leaders.  Conkling 
increasing  his  lead  by  two.  Two  votes  only  were  needed 
to  give  Conkling  the  Senatorship.  Every  Harris  man  was 
at  once  surrounded  by  Conkling  and  Davis  canvassers. 
The  vote  was  thrown  out,  however,  as  some  one,  probably 
through  design,  deposited  an  extra  ballot.  Another  and  the 
final  vote  was  taken  which  resulted  in  an  election  for 
Conkling.2  A  popular  demonstration  was  given  to  Senator- 
elect  Conkling  at  the  Delevan  House  immediately  upon  the 
adjournment  of  the  caucus.  He  was  carried  through  the 
corridors  on  the  shoulders  of  his  friends.  Lyman  Tre- 
maine  voiced  the  general  sentiment  of  those  who  crowded 
to  congratulate  Conkling  when  he  said  that  the  election 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Jan.  n,  1867. 

*  New  York  Tribune,  Jan.   11,   1867. 

Five  ballots  were  taken  as  follows : 

»       1  2  3  4  5 

Conkling   33  39  45  53  59 

Davis   30  41  44  50  49 

Harris    32  24  18  6 

Balcom    7  4  2 

Greeley 6 

Folger    1  1 


f  Of   IMS  \ 


V 


G' 


^3]  THE  SENATORIAL  ELECTION  OF  1867  T53 

u  showed  plainly  that  henceforth  the  young,  vigorous,  live 
men  must  rule.  ...  It  was  a  triumph  not  of  gold  but  of 
intellect,  against  age  and  mediocrity."  x 

While  the  Republican  caucus  was  sitting,  a  similar  meet- 
ing was  held  in  another  part  of  the  Capitol  building.  The 
Democratic  caucus  was  small  and  unenthusiastic.  The 
form  of  nominating  a  Democratic  Senatorial  candidate  was 
followed  out.  Mr.  William  Williams,  of  Erie,  was  chair- 
man of  the  caucus.  Mr.  Henry  C.  Murphy,  of  Kings,  was 
nominated  by  Mr.  Jacobs  of  the  same  county.  Mr.  Deve- 
lin  insisted,  in  spite  of  the  desire  to  make  the  meeting 
strictly  harmonious,  on  nominating  A.  Oakey  Hall,  of  New 
York,  to  show  him  the  regard  of  the  New  York  City  mem- 
bers. An  informal  ballot  gave  Murphy  twenty-five  votes  to 
twenty-one  for  Hall.  The  latter's  name  was  then  with- 
drawn and  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Murphy  made  unani- 
mous. A  slight  breeze  was  stirred  up  in  the  caucus  over  the 
question — what  to  do  if  the  votes  for  Murphy  were  thrown 
out  because  he  was  at  present  a  member  of  the  State  Sen- 
ate.2 This  furnished  a  suitable  vent  for  the  feelings  of  a 
few  strenuous  members  and  then  the  question  was  with- 
drawn. Mr.  Murphy  appeared  at  once,  and  briefly  but  elo- 
quently thanked  the  caucus  for  the  honor.3 

The  Republican  caucus  elicited  the  usual  rumors  that 
large  sums  of  money  had  been  in  evidence  as  an  influence 
in  the  election.  Yet  we  have  Conkling's  word  to  his  wife 
that  he  had  been  elected  honestly. 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Jan.  11,  1867. 

f  The  Democrats  were  not  to  escape  for  this  indiscretion.  The 
Daily  Democrat  commented  on  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Murphy:  "The 
Democrats  have  shown  the  hollowhess  of  their  regard  for  Constitu- 
tional restraints  by  voting  for  a  candidate  who  as  State  Senator  is 
confessedly  ineligible  and  for  whom  all  votes  are  void.  They  pre- 
tend to  be  the  friends  of  the  Constitution."  Rochester  Daily  Democrat, 
Jan.  16,  1867. 

•  New  York  Herald,  Jan.  11,  1867. 


I54        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [^ 

Great  sums  of  money '  are  among  the  influences  here.  I  have 
resolutely  put  down  my  foot  upon  the  ground  that  no  friend 
of  mine,  even  without  my  knowledge,  shall  pay  a  cent,  upon 
any  pretext  nor  in  any  strait,  come  what  will.  If  chosen,  it 
will  be  by  men  of  character,  and  if  beaten,  this  will  be  my  con- 
solation.1 

Conkling's  rise  had  been  meteoric.  Andrew  D.  White 
states  the  reason  which  led  him  to  advocate  the  candidacy 
of  Roscoe  Conkling. 

Judge  Bailey,  of  Oneida  County,  had  called  my  attention  to 
the  claims  of  Mr.  Roscoe  Conkling.  .  .  .  He  had,  to  be  sure, 
run  foul  of  Mr.  Blaine  ....  and  had  received  in  return  for 
what  Mr.  Blaine  considered  a  display  of  offensive  manners,* 
a  very  serious  oratorical  castigation;*  but  he  had  just  fought  a 
good  fight 5  which  had  drawn  the  attention  of  the  whole  state 
to  him.  He  had  shown  himself  equal  to  the  emergency.  .  .  . 
I  had  watched  his  course  closely,  and  one  thing  especially 
wrought  powerfully  with  me  in  his  favor.  The  men  who  had 
opposed  him  were  of  the  same  sort  with  those  who  had  op- 
posed me ;  as  I  was  proud  of  their  opposition,  I  felt  that  he 

1  Alfred  R.  Conkling,  Life  and  Letters  of  Roscoe  Conkling,  p.  287. 
"  The  gamblers  say  that  I  can  have  $200,000  here  from  New  York  in 
a  moment  if  I  choose,  and  that  the  members  are  fools  to  elect  me 
without  it." 

2  Alfred  R.  Conkling,  op.  cit.,  p.  286. 
Congressional  Globe,  39th  Cong.,  vol.  iii,  p.  2298. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  2298-9.     On  April  30,  1866. 

6  The  anti-war  Democrats,  in  conjunction  with  a  number  of  disaf- 
fected Republicans  in  his  district,  combined  to  defeat  Conkling's  re- 
election to  Congress.  The  New  York  Tribune  gave  him  no  effective 
support  as  was  expected  from  the  leading  organ  of  the  party.  The 
reason  appeared  later,  when  it  became  known  that  Greeley  was  a 
candidate  for  the  United  States  Senatorship.  For  a  time  it  looked 
as  if  Conkling  would  be  driven  from  public  life.  The  whole  number 
of  votes  cast  in  the  district  was  23,523,  of  which  Conkling  received 
12,470  and  Palmer  V.  Kellogg  11,053.  Alfred  R  Conkling,  op.  cit., 
p.  281. 


1 55]  THE  SENATORIAL  ELECTION  OF  1867  ^5 

had  a  right  to  be  so.  The  whole  force  of  Tammany  henchmen 
and  canal  contractors  throughout  the  state  honored  us  both 
with  their  enmity.1 

While  the  more  gallant  of  the  Democratic  Party  con- 
gratulated the  people  on  the  fact  that  they  would  "  now  be 
heard  in  the  United  States  Senate  Chamber  in  a  manner 
which  will  make  the  old  state  feel  proud  ",2  there  were 
others  of  the  Democratic  faith  not  so  generous.  The 
World,  rebutting  the  above  statement  of  Andrew  D.  White, 
charged  that  the  combination  which  had  elected  Conkling 
"  was  made  up  of  the  canal  men,  canal  commissioners,  the 
Oneida  and  Syracuse  interests "  and  it  also  hinted  at 
rumors  of  impeachment  of  the  "  Canal  Ring  officials  .  .  . 
with  an  exhibition  of  dirty  linen  on  all  sides,  which  will 
amuse  if  not  interest  the  Democracy  ".3  The  World  fore- 
saw the  formation  of  a  "  ring  "  in  the  Republican  Party 
under  Conkling,  which  would  lead  to  the  party's  disrup- 
tion, and  the  return  of  the  Democrats  to  power — hence  it 
was  jubilant.4 

During  the  course  of  the  Senatorial  campaign,  the 
Tribune  was  strangely  silent  on  the  matter  of  the  United 
States  Senatorship  until  the  morning  of  January  11,  1867, 
when  it  gave  a  full  and  fair  account  of  the  previous  even- 
ing. It  spoke  of  Conkling  as  "  a  most  effective  debater  and 
canvasser,  an  unflinching  Republican  and  a  most  devoted 
and  efficient  champion  of  Protection  to  Home  Industry  ".5 

1  Autobiography  of  Andrew  D.  White,  vol.  i,  p.  135. 

•  Cf.,  excerpts  in  Alfred  R.  Conkling,  op.  cit.,  p.  289. 

•  New  York  World,  Jan.  12,  1867. 

•  Another  charge  of  the  World  was  that  it  had  been  agreed  with 
Ezra  Cornell,  of  Tomkins  County,  that  he  should  be  the  next  Republi- 
can nominee  for  Governor.  Cornell  during  the  Senatorial  canvass,  the 
World  claimed,  subscribed  $50,000  to  Dana's  paper  in  New  York. 

•New  York  Tribune,  Jan.  II,  1867. 


I56        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [|e£ 

The  editorial  comment  of  the  New  York  Herald  on  the 
Senatorial  choice  was  noticeable  by  its  complete  absence. 

Harper's  Weekly  briefly  commented — "  Mr.  Thurlow 
Weed  has  joined  the  Manhattan  Club,  and  Mr.  Roscoe 
Conkling  is  elected  United  States  Senator  ".1  The  tribute 
of  Harper's  Weekly  to  Conkling  was  whole  souled. 

In  Roscoe  Conkling-  the  State  of  New  York  has  a  Senator 
who  truly  represents  the  spirit  and  tendency  of  her  regenerated 
political  principle  and  policy.  Young,  fearless,  devoted,  able  : 
of  the  profoundest  convictions :  of  much  experience  acquired 
in  critical  and  stormy  times :  with  all  his  brilliant  powers  dis- 
ciplined and  available,  the  country  no  less  than  the  state  will 
find  him  a  man  equal  to  the  hour. ' 

Of  an  entirely  different  hue  was  the  estimate  of  Conkling 
given  by  the  World.  "  He  has  a  fair  intellect,  a  bumptious 
kind  of  self-importance,  and  a  restless  desire  to  make  a 
figure,  which  will  perpetually  spur  him  on  to  make  a  dis- 
play of  his  talents  such  as  they  are.  That  his  radicalism  is 
a  little  deeper  seated  than  that  of  Mr.  Harris,  is  of  no  con- 
sequence, since  he  does  not  carry  guns  enough  to  be  a 
party  chief  ".3  The  predictions  of  the  World  proved  true 
so  far  as  it  concerned  national  leadership.4    It  is  doubtless, 

1  Harper's  Weekly,  Jan.  26,  1867,  p.  50. 
"  Ibid. 

•  New  York  World,  Jan.  10,  1867. 

*  The  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles  (Boston,  1911),  vol.  iii,  p.  16. 
Gideon  Welles  in  his  estimate  of  Conkling  spoke  of  him  as  vain,  "  with 
touches  of  spread  eagle  eloquence,  and  a  good  deal  of  impetuous 
ardor."  Speaking  of  Conkling,  George  F.  Hoar  says :  "  He  was 
an  able  man,  though  not  superior  in  his  ability  to  some  of  his 
associates  .  .  .  He  was  undoubtedly  a  strong  man.  .  .  .  But  he  was 
unfit  to  be  the  leader  of  a  great  party,  and  was  sure,  if  he  were 
trusted  with  power,  to  bring  it  to  destruction.  He  was  possessed  of 
an  inordinate  vanity.  He  was  unrelenting  in  his  enmities  and  at  any 
time  was  willing  to  sacrifice  to  them  his  party  and  the  interests  of  the 


157]  THE  SENATORIAL  ELECTION  OF  1867  I57 

no  more  than  fair  to  say  that  had  Conkling  not  prematurely 
severed  *  his  close  relations  with  national  affairs,  his  influ- 
ence over  the  Republican  Party  would  have  been  greater. 

The  editorial  interest  of  the  State  journals  in  the  out- 
come of  the  Senatorial  contest  at  Albany  was  not  so  marked 
as  that  of  the  New  York  City  papers.  The  Rochester  Daily 
Democrat  appears  to  have  believed  that  Mr.  Davis  had  not 
sanctioned  the  use  of  his  name,  which  was  utilized  for 
commercial  purposes  to  aid  Senator  Harris.2  "  A  Radical 
through  and  through  ",3  Conkling  gave  the  Radicals  of  the 
State  full  satisfaction.4  The  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Conk- 
ling's  home  paper,  emphasized  the  point  that  the  election  had 
been  won  by  fair  means. ■  The  few  State  journals  of  Demo- 
cratic alliance  which  noticed  Conkling's  election  editorially 

country."  Autobiography  of  Seventy  Years  (New  York,  1903),  vol. 
"\  P-  55-  Col.  A.  K.  McClure,  Recollections  of  Half  a  Century  (Salem, 
Mass.,  1902),  p.  no,  reporting  his  conversation  with  Conkling  after 
the  latter  had  been  defeated  in  his  endeavor  to  nominate  Grant  over 
Blaine,  Sherman  and  Garfield  in  1880,  says  of  him :  "  Conkling,  im- 
perious asa  Roman  Emperor,  could  not  accommodate  himself  to  de- 
feat, and  when  I  spoke  to  him  later  in  the  evening  about  the  political 
situation,  and  what  New  York  would  be  likely  to  do  as  to  the  Vice- 
Presidency,  his  answer  was  quite  too  sulphurous  to  be  recorded  in  the 
public  press." 

1  An  extremely  interesting  and  full  account  of  the  incidents  at- 
tending Conkling's  fall  may  be  found  in:  Alexander,  A  Political  His- 
tory of  the  State  of  New  York,  vol.  iii,  pp.  428-82. 

*  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Jan.  8,  1867. 

•  Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal,  Jan.  14,  1867. 

4  The  following  Radical  Journals  especially  endorsed  Conkling : 
Buffalo  Commercial,  Buffalo  Advertiser,  Buffalo  Express,  Binghamton 
Daily  Republican,  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Syracuse  Daily  Standard, 
Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal,  Utica  Worning  Herald,  Auburn  Advertiser, 
Albany  Evening  Journal  (see,  Jan.  II,  1867),  Albany  Express, 
and  Rochester  Daily  Democrat. 

6  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Jan.  II,  1867. 


^8        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [jcjg 

gave  a  note  of  qpiasi  approval,  the  Argus  reminding  the 
people  that  Conkling's  faults  were  still  those  of  youth.1 

On  March  23rd,  Conkling  delivered  his  maiden  speech 
in  the  Senate  in  connection  with  the  proposed  impeachment 
of  Henry  A.  Smythe,  Collector  of  the  Port  of  New  York.2 
The  Washington  Chronicle  spoke  of  his  effort  thus :  "  Ros- 
coe  Conkling  then  rose,  and  for  twenty^five  minutes  elec- 
trified the  Senate  with  a  clear  and  convincing  defense  and 
justification  of  the  New  York  Representative.3'  When  he 
had  concluded,  the  Senate  was  checked  in  its  purpose  to 
treat  the  House  imperiously  ".4  "  Roscoe  Conkling,"  said 
the  Chicago  Republican  of  March  28th,  "  the  new  member 
from  New  York,  .  .  .  though  the  youngest  man,  as  well 
as  the  youngest  Senator,  on  the  floor,  is  already  the  leader 
of  the  Senate."  5  The  position  of  Conkling  in  the  political 
life  of  New  York  fell  nothing  short  of  leader.  For  over  a 
decade  he  was  the  ruling  figure  among  the  dominant  faction 
of  the  Republicans. 

1  Albany  Argus,  Jan.  II,  1867.  Utica  Daily  Observer,  Jan.  II,  1867. 
Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  Jan.  8,  11,  1867. 

3  Gideon  Welles  speaks  of  Smythe  as  a  useless  politician  and  an 
indifferent  public  officer.  President  Johnson  later  nominated  Smythe 
for  the  Austrian  mission.  The  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  vol.  ii,  p. 
558;  vol.  iii,  p.  391. 

8  Mr.  Calvin  T.  Hulburd,  of  St.  Lawrence  County,  who  was  at  the 
head  of  a  House  Committee  of  Investigation. 

4  Washington  Chronicle,  March  28,  1867.  Quoted  in  "Alfred  R. 
Conkling,  op.  cit.,  p.  291. 

6  Chicago  Republican,  March  28,  1867.  Quoted  in  Ibid.,  p.  291. 
Cf.  Shelby  M.  Cullom,  Fifty  Years  of  Public  Service  (Chicago,  1911), 
p.  116  et  seq. 


CHAPTER  VII 
The  Conventions  of  1867 

To  the  uninitiated  the  Union  Republican  State  Conven- 
tion, which  met  at  Syracuse  on  September  25,  1867,  ap- 
peared harmonious.  Nevertheless,  the  feeling  of  envy  over 
Conkling's  rapid  rise  had  created  a  chasm  between  the  sup- 
porters of  Fenton  and  Conkling's  friends.  A  secret  under- 
standing was  discovered  by  the  Conkling  men,  in  the  nick 
of  time,  having  for  its  purpose  to  place  the  control  of  the 
permanent  organization  in  the  hands  of  Fenton,  with 
Lyman  Tremaine  in  the  chair.  But  immediately  upon  the 
announcement  of  the  committee  on  permanent  organiza- 
tion, Senator  Edward  M.  Madden  jumped  to  his  feet  and 
placed  before  the  convention  a  resolution  which  instructed 
them  to  report  the  name  of  Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling  as  presi- 
dent of  the  convention.  The  Fentonites,  taken  completely 
by  surprise,  saw  at  once  that  it  was  a  case  of  "  play  ball  ". 
Not  desiring  to  have  an  open  break  with  Conkling  at  this 
time,  they  accepted  him  as  permanent  chairman.  "  This 
was  a  point '  scored  '  on  the  friends  of  Governor  Fenton."  x 

Among  the  more  prominent  of  those  in  attendance  at  the 
convention  were  Horace  Greeley,  Andrew  D.  White,  Sen- 
ator Roscoe  Conkling,  General  Leavenworth,  General  Van 
Wyck,  Chauncey  M.  Depew,  Charles  S.  Spencer,  leader  of 
New  York  City  Radicals,  and  Rufus  W.  Andrews,  who  led 
the  delegation  of  New  York  City  Conservatives.2    A  double 

1  Alfred  P.  Conkling,  Life  and  Letters  of  Roscoe  Conkling,  p.  296. 

2  Among  others  were:  Ex- Surveyor  Andrews,  present  Surveyor 
Wakeman,  Waldo  Hutchins,  E.  Delafield  Smith,  Senator  Thomas 
Murphy. 

159]  159 


t6o        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [T6o 

delegation  from  New  York  City,  composed  of  Radicals  and 
Conservatives,  sought  to  gain  recognition  in  the  conven- 
tion. The  latter  were  those  who  had  attended  the  Philadel- 
phia Convention  and  had  remained  away  from  the  last  Re- 
publican State  Convention.  Sins  of  no  deeper  dye  than 
these  might  have  been  forgiven  or  at  least  overlooked  by  the 
Radicals,  but  this  Twenty-third  Street  party x  under 
Thomas  Murphy  and  Thurlow  Weed  had  dared  to  work 
actively  for  the  election  of  Hoffman  and  Pruyn  against 
Fen  ton  and  Woodford  in  the  last  election.  Such  treach- 
ery must  needs  be  atoned  for.  There  appeared  to  be  excel- 
lent social  fellowship  between  the  rival  delegations.  Neither 
of  the  New  York  delegations  manifested  any  desire  to  bolt 
the  ticket  if  they  received  unfavorable  action  at  the  hands 
of  the  convention.  The  Conservatives  desired  to  gain 
admittance  to  the  convention  by  means  of  a  compromise 
which  would  admit  both  delegations  and  allow  them  but 
one  vote.  The  Radicals,  however,  were  firm  in  their  de- 
mand that  punishment  be  meted  out  to  the  backsliders. 
The  leader  of  the  Radicals  was  heard  to  remark  that  "if 
the  Conservative  delegation  be  admitted,  the  Radicals  will 
withdraw  in  a  body."  2  There  were  comparatively  few  of 
the  noisy  brand  of  politicians  at  the  convention.  It  was 
said  to  have  comprised  a  stronger  aggregation  of  influential 
men  of  the  party  than  had  been  found  for  many  conven- 
tions past. 

The  Radical  delegation  from  New  York  and  Brooklyn 
led  the  general  feeling  among  the  delegates,  that  there 
should  be  a  complete  new  deal  in  the  nominations.  There 
was  a  feeling  rife  among  the  majority  of  the  delegates  that 
the  present  administration  had  favored  their  opposites  in 
political  faith.     This  feeling  prevailed,  in  spite  of  the  fact 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  24,   1867. 
1  New  York  Times,  Sept.  25,  1867. 


^i]  THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1867  T6r 

that  General  Barlow  and  his  colleagues  in  office  had  made 
numerous  attacks  on  several  corrupt  gangs,  notably  the 
Canal  Ring.  The  Times  x  and  the  Commercial  Advertiser  * 
were  severe  in  their  condemnation  of  the  convention  for 
permitting  this  perverse  sentiment  to  rule.  The  latter 
hinted  that  there  was  a  reason  for  the  move  which  was 
alien  to  the  best  interests  of  the  State  and  the  welfare  of 
the  people.  With  the  exception  of  the  secretary  of  state, 
the  New  York  City  Radicals  were  not  at  all  insistent  in 
urging  any  candidate.  For  secretary  of  state,  to  succeed 
General  Barlow,  both  the  Radical  and  the  Conservative 
delegations  from  New  York  urged  the  candidacy  of  Major 
General  Lawrence,  the  officer  who,  when  ordered  by  Gen- 
eral Forrest  to  surrender  Fort  Columbus,3  had  returned  the 
famous  reply — "  I  was  sent  to  defend  this  fort  and  intend 
to  do  it  ".*  He  was,  also,  a  nephew  of  the  noted  Captain 
Lawrence  who  covered  the  name  Chesapeake  with  glory. 

General  Barlow's  friends  were  in  strong  number,  but  to 
permit  one  of  the  old  ticket  to  hold  over  would  have  looked 
like  a  rebuke  to  the  others.  So  answered  those  who  desired 
a  change.  General  McKean,  of  Saratoga,  was  the  only 
other  candidate  for  the  leading  office.  It  was  not  thought 
at  first  that  he  would  displace  General  Lawrence.  For  the 
lesser  offices  Charles  J.  Folger  was  mentioned  to  succeed 
Attorney-General  Martindale.  Ex-Senator  Ferdon,  of 
Rockland,  and  Colonel  Robinson,  of  Elmira,  were  rivals 
for  the  State-prison  inspectorship.  Before  the  convention 
convened,  Frederick  Julian,  of  Chenango,  was  thought  to 
have  the  best  chance  for  state  treasurer,  but  he  went  down 

1  New  York  Times,  Sept.  26-27,  1867. 

'  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Sept.  26,  1867. 

•  Upon  the  Mississippi  a  short  distance  above  Fort  Pillow. 

*  New  York  Times,  Sept.  25,  1867. 


j62        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [162 

to  a  bad  defeat  at  the  hands  of  General  T.  C.  Gates,  of 
Ulster.  However,  prior  to  the  convention  nothing  was 
definite.  The  general  disposition  prevailed  to  forego  the 
usual  preliminary  caucuses  and  allow  the  strength  of  the 
various  candidates  to  show  itself  before  the  convention.1 

The  Tribune  and  the  Albany  Evening  Journal  were  both 
in  favor  of  administering  punishment  to  the  Conservative 
members.2  Their  sole  offense  was  that  they  had  differed 
with  prominent  members  of  the  party  in  the  earlier  stages 
of  Reconstruction.  The  Times  and  the  Commercial  Adver- 
tiser condemned  the  Radicals  severely,  for  throwing  over- 
board capable  and  upright  State  officers.  The  Times,  in  a 
strong  editorial,  asked: 

Is  the  Republican  Party  in  this  State  so  strong  that  it  can 
afford  to  alienate  any  portion  of  its  members  and  force  them 
into  a  position  of  indifference  if  not  hostility  ?  Is  the  time 
propitious  for  such  an  experiment  ?  Is  there  a  necessity  for 
reviving  former  differences,  vitalizing  dissensions,  which  events 
have  in  a  great  measure  healed,  and  provoking  quarrels  in  the 
presence  of  a  united  and  powerful  enemy  ?3 

The  Times  further  suggested,  in  its  endeavor  to  conciliate 
the  jarring  factions,  that  if  one  had  shown  a  disposition  to> 
favor  Johnson  in  the  beginning  it  should  be  remembered 
that  he  had  been  elected  by  Union  Republicans.  The  ques- 
tion whether  one  section  of  the  party  adhered  to  President 
Johnson  a  month  more  or  less  than  another  section  was  one 

1  A  convention  of  Germans  widely  advertised  as  meeting  on  Sep- 
tember 24th  at  Syracuse,  with  the  object  of  inducing  the  Republican 
State  Convenion  to  recommend  certain  modifications  of  the  laws, 
was  poorly  attended.     New  York  Tunes,  Sept.  2,  1867. 

8  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  25-7 ;  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept. 
25-7. 

8  New  York  Times,  Sept.  25,  1867. 


^3]  THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1867  ^ 

which  did  not  offer  a  a  valid  reason  for  impugning  the 
fealty,  denying  the  honesty,  or  assailing  the  patriotism  of 
the  other.  The  pretensions  of  the  Union  League  Club  when 
sitting  in  judgment  on  Mr.  Greeley  for  bailing  Jeff.  Davis, 
were  not  more  preposterous  than  would  be  the  claim  of  the 
convention  to  excommunicate  those  who  have  not  in  all 
things  agreed  with  the  majority  of  its  members  ".*  Thur- 
low  Weed,  now  editor  of  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  placed 
the  responsibility  for  the  unwise  course  of  the  Republican 
Convention  on  Horace  Greeley.  In  an  editorial  on  Septem- 
ber 25th  he  made  a  cutting  assault  on  Greeley. 

But  for  the  evil  it  is  doing:  ....  it  would  be  amusing:  to  see 
the  Tribune  preach  about  party  obligations.  In  its  best  days 
it  was  capricious  and  unreliable.  During  the  twenty-five  years 
of  Whig  service,  it  was  always  disturbing  and  distracting  the 
party  with  its  isms.  In  1864  it  labored  to  get  up  a  Cleveland 
Convention  to  defeat  the  re-election  of  President  Lincoln.  It 
advocated  Secession  in  i860.  It  played  the  bully  and  coward 
throughout  the  war,  closing  with  an  offer  of  $400,000,000  as  a 
bribe  to  Slavery  for  Peace.  Only  two  years  ago  by  its  shame- 
ful opposition  to  M.  O.  Roberts,  it  secured  the  election  of  Mr. 
Hoffman.  .  .  .  And  this  Tribune,  an  organ  of  Secession,  that 
now  demands  Amnesty  for  all  Traitors  and  Assassins :  that 
opened  the  Prison  Door  for  Jefferson  Davis  :  that  invites  Breck- 
inridge to  return  :  that,  after  urging  the  President  to  appoint 
General  Steedman — Secretary  of  War,  stigmatized  him  as  the 
most  unfit  man  in  the  country  for  that  position,  arraigns 
and  impugns  the  Republicanism  of  men  through  whose  labor 
and  care  both  the  Whig  and  Republican  Parties  were  .  .  .  pre- 
served in  their  strength  and  integrity  until  the  evil  day  of  small 
things  and  cheap  men.  .  .  .2 

The  dispute  between  the  rival   delegations   from  New 

1  New  York  Times,  Sept.  25,  1867. 

J  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Sept.  25,  1867. 


r64        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [164 

York  occupied  the  convention  for  more  than  an  hour.  The 
leader  of  the  Radicals,  Mr.  Spencer,  read  copiously  from 
the  article  in  the  Tribune  l  describing  the  antecedents  of 
the  "  Twenty-third  Street  delegation".  Rufus  G.  Andrews, 
the  voice  of  the  latter  organization,  offered  to  compare  his 
own  or  the  past  record  of  his  delegation  with  that  of  the 
Radicals.  Mr.  Andrews  maintained  his  rights  with  such 
earnestness  and  persuasiveness  that  he  was  enabled  to  have 
a  committee  appointed  by  the  convention  to  hear  their 
claims.  In  this  they  "  scored  "  on  the  Radicals,  who,  with 
the  State  committee,  had-  planned  to  shut  them  out  without 
even  a  committee  hearing.  Not  only  did  the  Twenty-third 
Street  delegation  obtain  a  hearing,  but  Mr.  Gleason,  chair- 
man of  the  committee,  frankly  admitted  in  his  report  that 
there  had  been  irregularities  on  both  sides.  He  recom- 
mended to  the  convention  that  they. adopt  some  action 
through  which  the  various  differences  might  be  harmonized 
immediately. 

This  result  was  all  the  Conservatives  desired.  Mr.  An- 
drews had  told  the  convention  as  much,  previously.  He 
made  a  good-humored  address  of  thanks  and  the  Conser- 
vatives retired  in  a  body  well  pleased.2  They  professed  to 
regard  it  as  a  triumph,  for  it  had  hardly  been  a  part  of  their 
expectation  to  receive  admittance  to  the  convention.  The 
Radicals'  chagrin  might  have  been  greater,  had  the  attempt 
made  by  Senator  Madden,  just  previous  to  the  adjournment 
of  the  convention,  been  successful.  He  moved  for  the  pass- 
ing of  the  special  committee's  recommendation,  which 
would  empower  the  State  central  committee  to  investigate 
the  irregularities  of  the  Radicals  in  New  York  City  and  to 
settle  their  differences,  if  possible.     This  motion  was  most 

1  New  York   Tribune,   Sept.  24,   1867.     Five  thousand  copies  of  the 
Tribune  were  brought  to  Syracuse  for  distribution  in  the  convention. 
1  New  York  Times,  Sept.  25,  1867. 


165]  THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1867  T£5 

strenuously  opposed  by  Mr.  Spencer  and  at  length  laid  upon 
the  table.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  fact  that  a  majority  of 
the  delegates  had  left  the  hall,  it  might  have  received  a  dif- 
ferent fate. 

Roscoe  Conkling,  upon  taking  the  chair,  delivered  an  ad- 
dress which  was  received  with  great  enthusiasm.  The 
speech  was  a  "  fervid  and  eloquent  assertion  of  the  prin- 
ciples and  purpose  of  the  great  dominant  party  of  the  coun- 
try ".1  "  It  is  a  party  of  ideas,  not  of  privileges  for  a  few 
but  of  human  rights  for  all."  2  Conkling  gave  notice  of  his 
intention  to  take  "  no  one's  dust  ".8  He  pointed  out  that 
the  Republican  party  had  vindicated  its  claim  to  the  Union- 
ist support  by  its  successful  administration  and  uncondi- 
tional triumph  in  the  War.  This  it  had  done  against  all  the 
odds  of  a  sneering  incredulity  in  Europe,  the  treachery  of 
Copperheads  and  the  frequent  hesitancy  of  many  friends. 
When  Conkling  asserted  that  the  situation  in  national  af- 
fairs demanded  the  use  of  impeachment  for  the  President — ■ 
the  enthusiasm  of  the  convention  knew  no  bounds.4  The 
Herald,  editorially,  termed  the  convention  speech  of  Senator 
Conkling  "  as  pitiful  a  piece  of  party  fume  as  ever  came  to 
the  dignity  of  print  ".6 

1  Harper's  Weekly,  Oct.  10,  1867,  p.  642. 

*  Ibid.  •  New  York  Times,  Sept.  26,  1867. 

4  An  excellent  example  of  Conkling's  invective  follows :  "  But  in 
free  America  ...  we  see  bills  vetoed  and  then  when  they  become 
laws  we  see  them  evaded  and  defied  upon  pre'ense  that  they  are  want- 
ing in  the  very  things  for  which  the  veto  was  put  forth.  We  see  the 
nation  insulted  by  a  message  to  Congress,  intended  to  stab  our  finan- 
cial credit,  a  message  wickedly  intima  ing  that  by  chastising  traitors 
the  American  people  have  become  liable  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  lately 
rebellious  states.  In  plain  perversion  of  law,  if  not  in  open  defiance 
of  law,  we  see  the  removal  of  the  unflinching  Minister  of  War.  .  .  .*. 
New  York  Times,  Sept.  26,  1867. 

•  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  5,  1867. 


t66        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [j^g 

When  nominations  became  the  order,  Mr.  Charles  S. 
Spencer,  of  New  York,  proposed  the  name  of  General  Hud- 
son Lawrence,  of  New  York,  for  secretary  of  state;  Mr. 
D.  D.  T.  Marshall  placed  in  nomination  General  Francis  C. 
Barlow,  of  New  York,  and  Mr.  John  C.  Green  nominated 
General  McKean,  of  Saratoga.  The  fight  was  on.  The 
Radicals  from  New  York,  in  spite  of  their  loud  clamor ings 
for  General  Lawrence,  apparently  had  little  real  desire  for 
his  candidacy,  in  face  of  a  more  available  man.  General 
McKean  received  270,  General  Barlow,  101,  and  General 
Lawrence  6  votes.  General  McKean's  nomination  was 
then  made  unanimous.  As  in  the  case  of  General  Barlow, 
there  was,  also,  a  considerable  feeling  that  the  dropping  of 
Mr.  Hillhouse  would  weaken  the  ticket.  Those  who  de- 
sired a  new  slate  used  the  same  argument,  that  to  retain  one 
of  the  old  names  would  be  an  implied  censure  of  the  ad- 
ministration of  those  who  were  dismissed.  Judge  Folger 
nominated  Thomas  C.  Hillhouse,  of  Ontario,  and  Lyman 
Tremaine  did  the  same  for  Calvin  T.  Hulburd,  of  St.  Law- 
rence, for  comptroller.  The  determination  to  have  a  new 
slate  won.  Mr.  Hulburd  received  238  to  136  votes  for  Hill- 
house.1   The  fight  over  the  State  treasurership  was  spirited. 

1  New  York  Times,  Sept.  26,  1867. 

Ticket.  Candidates  nominated  were :  General  McKean,  of  Saratoga, 
Secretary  of  State ;  Calvin  T.  Hulburd,  of  St.  Lawrence,  Comptroller ; 
General  T.  C.  Gates,  of  Ulster,  State  Treasurer ;  Judge  Vancoff,  of 
Kings,  Attorney  General;  A.  C.  Powell,  of  Onondaga,  State  Engineer; 
John  M.  Hammond,  of  Allegany,  Canal  Commissioner;  Gilbert 
Delamater  of  Wyoming,  Inspector  of  State  Prisons ;  Charles  Mason, 
of  Madison,  Judge  of  Court  of  Appeals. 

Radical  State  Committee — H.  Eastman,  of  Queens;  C.  H.  Goddard, 
of  Kings;  H.  N.  Holt,  of  Kings;  J.  G.  Abbe,  of  New  York;  W.  H.  M. 
Kenney,  of  New  York;  Martin  B.  Brown,  of  New  York;  Waldo 
Hutchins,  of  New  York;  Ira  O.  Miller,  of  New  York;  H.  D.  Robers- 
ton,  of  Westchester;  E.  M.  Madden,  of  Orange;  J.  H.  Ketchum,  of 
Dutchess;  John  Lyon,  of  Ulster;  Hamilton  Harris,  of  Albany;  H.  J. 
King,  of  Rensselaer;  Jerome  Lapham,  of  Warren;  E.  A.  Merritt,  of 


167]  THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1867  ^ 

Hon.  Frederick  Juliand,  of  Chenango,  who  was  supposed 
to  have  the  strongest  following  before  the  convention  met, 
came  in  third  with  iy  votes  to  133  for  Mr.  A.  B.  Cornell, 
of  Tompkins,  and  207  for  General  Gates.  Erastus  S. 
Prosser,  of  Erie,  was  a  candidate,  but  before  the  result 
was  announced  he  withdrew  and  threw  the  support  of  Erie 
County  to  Mr.  Cornell.  General  Howland's  name  had 
been  previously  withdrawn  upon  receipt  of  a  letter  in  which 
he  declined  to  run  for  renomination. 

The  Commercial  Advertiser  condemned  the  Republican 
convention  for  throwing  overboard  capable  and  upright 
State  officers. 

Mr.  Goodsell,  the  State  Engineer,  who,  as  a  member  of  the 
Contracting  Board,  steadily  and  firmly  resisted  the  corrupt 
awards  of  his  colleagues,  is  as  ignominiously  dropped  as  was 
Alberger,  the  unworthy  commissioner.  Against  Messrs.  Bar- 
low, Hillhouse,  Martindale,  and  Howland,  there  was  not  a 
whisper  of  complaint.  .  .  .  There  was  a  reason  .  .  .  for  this 
injustice.  That  reason,  however,  was  alien  to  the  interests  of 
the  State  and  the  welfare  of  the  People.1 

The  World  claimed  to  see  a  dearth  of  candidates  at  the  Re- 
publican convention  and  heartily  endorsed  those  nominated 

St.  Lawrence;  F.  D.  Curtiss,  of  Saratoga;  Alvin  Sturtevant,  of  Dela- 
ware; E.  V.  Livingston,  of  Lewis;  C.  H.  Hopkins,  of  Oneida;  J.  B. 
Jenkins,  of  Madison;  Isaac  L.  Endres,  of  Livingston;  Adolphe  Notte, 
of  Monroe;  W.  H.  Merrill,  of  Wyoming;  John  Sherwood,  of  Erie; 
G.  W.  Palmer,  of  Chautauqua;  S.  B.  Garritt,  A.  B.  Cornell,  Luther 
Caldwell,  and  James  Terwilliger. 

Note — Mr.  C.  T.  Hulburd  upon  reaching  home  on  Oct.  17,  1867, 
after  a  four  months'  trip  abroad,  was  first  informed  of  his  nomin- 
ation in  Ogdensburg.  He  decided  to  decline.  This  gave  the  Republi- 
can managers  a  chance  to  redeem  and  bolster  up  their  ticket  in  view 
of  the  cry  against  corrupt  candidates  by  the  substitution  of  Mr. 
Hillhouse,  whose  faithful  services  were  well  known.  New  York 
Commercial  Advertiser,  Oct.  25,  1867. 

1  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Sept.  26,  1867. 


iftg        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [jflj 

as  "conspicuous  neither  for  resisting  official  corruption,  nor 
for  anything  else  'V  Greeley,  however,  consoled  disinter- 
ested third  parties  by  assuring  them  that — "  It  is  quite  dis- 
tressing to  see  their  tears  over  the  State  officers  who  were 
not  renominated.  .  .  .  But  we  were  not  nominating  Demo- 
cratic candidates,  nor  in  any  manner  trying  to  please  that 
party."2 

The  platform  affirmed  the  right  of  impartial  suffrage. 
It  took  strong  ground  against  corruption  and  mismanage- 
ment in  the  affairs  of  the  State  and  declared  a  "  purpose 
to  continue  the  work  of  administrative  reform  it  had  inau- 
gurated; that  it  will  steadily  fight  corruptionists  and  ever 
hold  them  its  enemies;  that  it  will  urge  war  against  them 
until  corruption  and  maladministration  are  rooted  out  and 
destroyed.  .  .  ."  3  Emphatically  declaring  for  the  support 
of  Congress  and  its  policy,  the  platform  most  cordially  ap- 
proved Hon.  Edwin  M.  Stanton  in  his  conduct  of  office, 
and  condemned,  "  as  an  insult  to  the  nation  ",  the  removal 
of  General  Philip  H.  Sheridan  and  General  Daniel  E. 
Sickles.  A  sop  was  thrown  to  the  church-going  and  tem- 
perance elements  in  a  resolution  for  the  eniorcement  of  a 
quiet  Sabbath  and  the  excise  law,  this  to  be  done,  how- 
ever, in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  interfere  with  the  liberty 
of  the  citizen.  All  endeavors  to  interfere  with  the  financial 
obligations  of  the  Union  were  repelled  and  rebuked,  al- 
though the  platform  asserted  the  need  for  fairness  and 
equality  in  the  public  burdens.  The  Union  soldiers  were 
recognized  for  their  services  and  thanks  were  given  to  Gov- 
ernor Fenton  and  Senators  Morgan  and  Conkling.  The 
spirit  of  the  platform  was  well  stated  by  the  watchword 

1  New  York  World,  Sept.  27,  1867. 
J  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  27,  1867. 
•  New  York  Times,  Sept.  26,  1867. 


169]  THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1867  ^ 

inscribed  upon  the  party  banner — "  National  reconstruction 
through  liberty  and  justice:  State  repose  through  integrity 
and  economy  ".* 

Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  wisdom  or  discretion  of  the 
Convention,  [declared  the  Surt]  it  certainly  deserves  credit  for 
blunt  honesty,  for  there  is  not  an  equivocal  line  or  evasive 
word  in  the  platform.  .  .  .  The  suffrage  plank  in  the  platform 
...  a  sacrifice  of  political  strength  on  the  altar  of  consis- 
tency .  .  .  will  cost  the  party  ten  thousand  votes.' 

The  World,  not  so  magnanimous  as  the  Sun,  asked — "When 
did  it  ever  before  happen  that  a  political  party  adopted  a 
platform  condemning,  not  its  opponents,  but  itself?  Sun- 
day liquor  laws!  Who  passed  them?  Official  corruption! 
Who  perpetrated  it?  Negro  suffrage!  Who  refused  to 
submit  to  it?"*  Meanwhile  Greeley  assured  all  that  the 
platform  was  "  broad  enough  for  all  .  .  .  who  seek  the 
true  interests  of  the  country  .  .  .  and  at  the  same  time 
guard  and  advance  the  best  interests  of  the  Empire  State."  4 

Henry  J.  Raymond  showed  the  sincerity  of  his  spirit  in 
his  attitude  towards  the  Republican  party.  His  editorials 
acted  as  oil  upon  the  waters.  "  The  Republican  State  Con- 
vention which  assembled  at  Syracuse  yesterday,"  said  the 
Times,  "  performed  its  work  quickly  and  well  .  .  .  the 
party  enters  upon  the  contest  with  a  new  batch  of  candi- 
dates 5  on  a  platform  which  will  commend  itself  to  the 
judgment  of  Republicans  throughout  the  State." 

The  Republican  papers  in  the  western  portion  of  the 

1  New  York  Times,  Sept.  26,  1867. 
'  New  York  Sun,  Sept.  27,  1867.  - 

*  New  York  World,  Sept.  27,  1867. 

*  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  27,  1867. 

*  New  York  Times,  Sept.  26,  1867. 


iy0        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [iyQ 

State  uniformly  agreed  that  the  Syracuse  convention  had 
acted  wisely  in  nominating  a  new  slate.1  The  Commercial 
Advertiser  went  so  far  as  to  admit  that  certain  of  the  old 
Unionist  officials,  especially  those  on  the  canal  contracting 
board,  had  been  corrupt.2  In  the  northern  section  of  the 
State  the  Republicans  appeared  to  be  well  satisfied  with  the 
choice  of  Mr.  Hulburd,  of  St.  Lawrence  County,  as  their 
representative  on  the  ticket.  No  sign  of  the  criticism  of 
Mr.  Hulburd,  which  appeared  in  other  quarters,  was  mani- 
fest in  the  press  of  his  home  town.  "  So  far  as  our  local 
interests  are  concerned/'  said  the  Daily  Journal,  of  Ogdens- 
burg, 

we  believe  that  the  Northern  portion  of  the  State  will  be  ben- 
efited by  the  nomination  and  election  of  Mr.  Hulburd.  With 
Mr.  Hulburd  in  the  Comptroller's  office,  we  are  certain  that 
the  influence  of  at  least  one  of  the  departments  will  not  be  used 
to  prevent  the  Niagara  Ship  Canal  from  becoming  a  success- 
ful enterprise.3 

The  Republican  organs  of  Syracuse  seemed  to  be  chiefly 
impressed  with  the  harmony  and  good-will  displayed  in  the 
convention.* 

Nevertheless,  flaws  were  discovered  in  the  harmony 
which  the  western  and  Syracuse  papers  vaunted.  The 
Utica  Morning  Herald,  the  mouthpeice  of  Conkling,  de- 
nied that  the  new  slate  had  resulted  from  a  movement  to 
increase  the  power  of  Fenton  by  placing  him  in  the  vice- 
presidency  the  next  year.     Roberts  insisted  that  the  new 

1  Buffalo  Commercial  Advertiser,  Sept.  26,  27,  1867;  Buffalo  Express, 
Sept.  27,  1867 ;  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Sept.  26,  1867. 

*  Buffalo  Commercial  Advertiser,  Sept.  27,  1867. 

3  Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  27,  1867.     See  note  supra,  p.  167. 

*  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  26,   1867;   Syracuse  Daily  Standard, 
Sept.  26,  1867. 


I7f]  THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1867  I7I 

ticket  had  for  its  purpose  the  purification  of  the  party.1 
This  was  also  the  attitude  assumed  by  the  Albany  Evening 
Journal,  which  emphasized  the  endorsement  of  impartial 
suffrage.2 

The  Democratic  organs  of  the  State  considered  the  nomi- 
nation of  an  entire  new  ticket  as  an  open  confession  of 
guilt,  a  point  which  they  were  not  slow  to  urge.3  The  sen- 
timent seemed  to  prevail  among  the  Democrats  that  Fenton 
had  controlled  the  convention.4  But  there  was  one  notable 
exception  to  this  opinion.  The  Daily  Union  and  Adver- 
tiser, of  Rochester,  viewed  the  failure  to  nominate  the  old 
ticket  not  as  any  condemnation  of  official  corruption  but 
simply  as  the  victory  of  one  "  Ring  "  in  the  Republican 
party  over  another  in  the  struggle  for  spoils.5 

Albany  was  the  scene  of  two  co-temporary  conven- 
tions. The  State  Temperance  Convention  met  there  on  the 
same  day,  Thursday,  October  3rd,  with  the  State  Conven- 
tion of  the  Democrats.  The  Temperance  convention  drew 
up  the  usual  resolutions  and  nominated  candidates.  It  at- 
tempted, moreover,  to  exert  an  influence  upon  the  consid- 
erations of  the  Democratic  body,  through  the  proximity  of 
the  meeting. 

At  the  Democratic  convention  the  attendance  was  small, 
the  hall  being  less  than  two-thirds  full  at  both  of  the  ses- 
sions. In  accordance  with  a  custom  honored  since  the  days 
of  the  Regency,6  or  because,  as  the  Herald  suggested,  "  the 

1  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Sept.  26,  1867. 

*  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Sept.  26,  1867. 

•  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Sept.  26,  1867 ;  Buffalo  Daily 
Courier,  Sept.  27,  1867;  Utica  Daily  Observer,  Sept.  26,  1867. 

4  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Sept.  27,  1867. 
6  Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  Sept.  24,  1867. 
6  A  group  of  Democratic  politicians,  who  two  decades  before  the  Civil 
War,  controlled  the  politics  of  the  State. 


X72        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [iy2 

managers  of  the  convention  .  .  .  were  determined  not  to 
hazard  the  success  of  their  party  by  leaving  anything  to  be 
settled  in  the  public  deliberations  of  the  delegates,"  x  the 
convention  adjourned  on  the  first  day  without  taking  action 
on  nominations  or  platform.  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  Ex-Gov- 
ernor Seymour,  and  Mayor  Hoffman,  of  New  York,  were 
the  prominent  figures  of  the  convention. 

The  World  stated  that  the  Democratic  State  convention 
had  not  assembled  for  many  years  "  under  circumstances 
so  auspicious  to  harmony,  energy,  courage,  and  hope;  nor 
has  there  ever  been  a  time  in  the  whole  history  of  the  coun- 
try when  consequences  so  important  depended  on  Demo- 
cratic success."  2  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  in  his  speech  calling 
the  convention  to  order,  congratulated  the  delegates  upon 
the  harmony  everywhere  apparent.  He  hoped  that  nothing 
would  be  recalled  save  the  public  good  and  that  all  personal 
preferences  and  predilections  would  be  ignored,  looking 
towards  harmony  in  the  Presidential  contest  of  the  ensuing 
year.  A  brief  but  mighty  struggle  took  place  between 
Hoffman  and  Horatio  Seymour,  as  to  who  should  be  per- 
manent chairman.  Hoffman's  friends  coveted  the  honor 
for  him  in  the  belief  that  its  prestige  would  strengthen 
him  in  his  candidacy  for  Governor  in  the  next  convention. 
It  was  seen,  nevertheless,  that  Seymour  was  still  far  too 
powerful,  so  a  hasty  retreat  was  effected.  Hoffman  was 
made  the  temporary  chairman  instead.  His  speech  was 
well  received,  but  failed  to  create  much  enthusiasm 
among  the  country  delegates,  who  were  not  fully  ap- 
preciative of  his  slang  and  frequent  reference  to  the  negro. 
He  gave  evidence  of  the  location  of  his  support  in  a  vio- 
lent denunciation   of  the  recent  legislation   affecting  the 

1  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  5,  1867. 
a  New  York  World,  Oct.  2,  1867. 


173]  THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1867  Ty^ 

metropolitan  administration  and  the  enforcement  of  the 
excise  law.  He  ridiculed  the  so-called  "  Lager  Beer  Reso- 
lution "  '  of  the  Republican  convention.  He  sprang  a  sur- 
prise upon  a  certain  portion  of  the  Democrats  by  taking  a 
decided  stand  for  the  payment  of  every  dollar  of  the  Na- 
tional debt  in  accordance  with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the 
bond.  However,  this  statement  was  not  without  the  non 
sequitur  that  the  above  could  be  accomplished  only  by  re- 
storing the  Democracy  to  power. 

Horatio  Seymour,  upon  accepting  the  chairmanship  of 
the  convention,  received  a  sincerely  enthusiastic  ovation.2 
He  took  grounds  similar  to  those  expressed  by  Hoffman 
on  the  financial  situation,  which  occupied  the  chief  portion 
of  his  address.  Our  credit  must  be  preserved,  the  Repub- 
licans have  failed,  Democracy  alone  can  do  it,  was  the  tenor 
of  his  remarks.  He  declared  that  the  Republicans  were 
crying  out  that  the  country  was  in  danger  and  that  the 
Democracy  could  not  escape  from  the  problems  before  the 
country.  After  referring  to  the  corruption  in  the  Repub- 
lican ranks,  Seymour  turned  to  the  inequalities  of  repre- 
sentation in  the  Senate.  For  an  example  he  balanced  Colo- 
rado which,  as  he  said,  could  not  uphold  the  rudiments  of  a 
State  government,  against  New  York  State  with  a  popula- 
tion of  4,ooo,ooo.3  Like  Hoffman,  he  aimed  for  the  Ger- 
man vote  in  urging  tolerance  for  a  people  whose  social 
customs  differed  from  our  own. 

The  Herald  admired  Mr.  Seymour's  speech  as  a  "  vigor- 

1  The  World  spread  broadcast  the  fact  that  the  Temperance  League 
had  placed  documents  in  the  seat  of  every  member  of  the  convention, 
declaring  that  they  would  support  for  office  none  but  avowed  temper- 
ance men.     New  York  World,  Sept.  26,  1867. 

1  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  5,  1867. 

•  New  York  Times,  Oct.  4,  1867.  Seymour  either  must  have  aimed 
at  confusing  his  hearers,  or  must  have  been  hard  pressed  for  a  com- 
parison, as  Colorado  was  not  made  a  State  until  August  1,  1876. 


I74        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [j^ 

ous,  clear,  statesmanlike  view  of  the  condition  of  the  coun- 
try ",  but  added,  w  he  is  not  out  of  the  woods  yet  ".*  In  the 
latter  vein  the  Evening  Post  remarked  that  some  parts  of 
Seymour's  speech  "had  a  sound  of  1861  in  them,  as  though 
the  speaker  had  just  waked  from  a  long  sleep."  2  As  usual, 
Horace  Greeley  did  not  stop  to  select  his  words  in  speak- 
ing of  his  ancient  antagonist.  "  Mr.  Seymour  is  a  very  oily 
speaker,  who  needs  only  integrity  and  wisdom  to  make  him 
a  very  honest  and  able  man.  Without  those  qualities  he 
remains  a  demagogue  whose  utterances  ...  he  has  neither 
the  discretion  to  conceal  nor  the  courage  to  carry  out."  3 
Harper's  Weekly  took  the  occasion  to  review  Seymour's 
political  past,  in  an  indictment  which  would  have  made  a 
man  of  smaller  calibre  than  Seymour  quail.4 

1  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  4,  1867. 

■  New  York  Evening  Post,  Oct.  5,  1867. 

•  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  5,  1867. 

*  Harper's  Weekly,  Oct.  19,  1867,  p.  659.  "  Horatio  Seymour  was 
the  spokesman  of  the  party  in  the  convention  as  he  has  been  its 
chief  for  some  years.  He  was  the  chosen  representative  of  the  spirit 
of  '  reaction '  which  is  to  undo  the  work  of  the  war.  And  who  is  this 
representative?  It  is  the  same  Horatio  Seymour  who,  in  December, 
i860,  at  the  notorious  Tweedle  Hall  Convention,  tried  to  defeat  the 
Government  in  advance  and  secure  the  triumph  of  Rebellion.  It  is 
the  same  Horatio  Seymour  who  declared  that  if  it  came  to  a  choice 
between  the  Union  and  slavery,  he  was  for  le  ting  the  Union  go  and 
saving  slavery.  It  is  the  same  Horatio  Seymour  whom  the  Rebellion 
made  Governor  in  1862  and  who  appointed  John  A.  Green,  known 
only  as  one  of  the  most  malignant  of  Copperheads,  military  com- 
mander of  a  large  part  of  the  State,  for  what  purpose  it  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  imagine.  It  is  the  same  Horatio  Seymour  who,  in  the  New 
York  Academy  of  Music  on  July  4,  1863,  when  Lee  was  pressing  into 
Pennsylvania,  taunted  the  Government  with  its  failure,  asked  con- 
temptuously for  the  '  great  victories '  that  had  been  promised  and 
warned  it  that  the  mob  could  be  lawless  as  well  as  the  Government. 
...  It  is  the  same  Horatio  Seymour  who,  when  the  mob  of  New 
York  obeyed  the  word  he  had  given  them  and  ravaged  the  city,  stood 
before   them    at   the    City    Hall    and    calling   them,    still    flushed    and 


I75]  THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1867  ^^ 

The  opening  speeches  of  the  convention  were  further 
rounded  out  by  A.  Oakey  Hall,  of  Tammany  fame,  who  in 
response  to  numerous  calls  made  a  short  address  which 
appealed  to  the  humor  of  the  convention.  Among  other 
remarks  he  said  that  the  Democrats  "  had  met  to  prepare 
so  far  as  the  State  of  New  York  was  concerned,  the  obse- 
quies of  the  Radical  party,  which  was  about  to  die  of  'yellow 
mulatto  fever ',  it  having  now  the  '  black  vomit ',  the  last 
stage  of  the  disease."  * 

The  various  delegations  were  in  practical  unanimity.  Al- 
though the  members  of  the  Mozart  Hall 2  delegation  were 
ignored  in  their  official  capacity,  they  made  no  resistance. 
Tammany  rewarded  their  good  behavior  by  an  invitation  to 
seats  as  honorary  guests  of  the  convention.  An  amend- 
ment to  the  motion  which  seated  the  Mozart  delegation, 
also  honored  another  delegation  representing  the  German 
lager-beer  interests.8  The  first  day  of  the  convention  was 
occupied  with  organization  and  speeches.  Considerable 
caucusing  was  carried  on  among  the  up-State  delegates, 
for  the  Tammany  delegates  had  suddenly  outgrown  their 

reeking  with  the  wanton  and  barbarous  massacre  of  helpless  men, 
women  and  children,  '  my  friends,'  promised  them  that  the  laws 
should  be  executed,  but  that  he  would  try  to  have  them  changed  as 
his  '  friends '  desired.  And,  finally,  it  is  the  same  Horatio  Seymour 
who  presided  over  the  last  National  Convention  of  the  Democratic 
Party  which  joyfully  declared  the  war  a  failure  and  stimulated  the 
expiring  rebellion  to  one  more  struggle." 

1  New  York  Times,  Oct.  4,  1867. 

*  It  appears  that  the  Mozart  Hall  men  cared  comparatively  little 
what  the  composition  of  the  State  ticket  or  the  principles  of  the  party 
platform  might  be,  so  long  as  they  could  make  a  profitable  arrange- 
ment in  the  mat  er  of  the  coming  charter  election.  The  Mozart  and 
Tammany  Halls  difficulty,  which  threatened  at  one  time  to  result  in  an 
airing  of  the  "dirty  clothes"  of  the  respective  factions,  was  adjusted 
in  less  than  five  minutes.     New  York  Herald,  Oct.  4,  1867. 

8  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  4,  1867. 


I76        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [j^g 

avariciousness  and  appetite  for  office.  At  least,  they  came 
to  the  convention  generously  offering  no  candidates,  or  per- 
haps better  still,  urging  no  candidates.  Uncharitable  per- 
sons were  prone  to  remark,  that  as  there  were  no  offices 
worthy  of  notice  at  this  time,  Tammany  was  asking  for 
nothing,  in  anticipation  of  asking  for  all,  the  following  year 
on  the  strength  of  their  previous  generosity. 

Horatio  Seymour  ruled  the  convention.  The  new  State 
committee  was  framed  in  his  interests.  Even  so,  the  re- 
markable harmony  displayed  in  the  convention  received  a 
rude  jolt  when  the  platform  came  up  for  consideration. 
After  having  heard  the  report  of  Mr.  John  B.  Haskin,  of 
Westchester,  chairman  of  the  committee  on  resolutions, 
Mr.  John  McKeon  startled  the  convention  with  a  most 
vehement  protest  against  the  entire  platform.  He  believed 
it  was  time  for  the  Democratic  party  to  come  out  in  the 
open,  to  take  a  bold  stand  and  to  dare  proclaim  the  real  sen- 
timents of  the  party.  "  They  have  stood  on  the  defensive 
long  enough  and  it  was  time  they  made  an  attack  upon  the 
enemy."  *  Mr.  McKeon  ended  his  remarks  with  a  denun- 
ciation of  the  whole  platform  as  meaningless  and  offered 
an  amendment  to  the  fifth  resolution,  which  pledged  the 
convention  to  repeal  the  excise  law  of  April,  1866.  This 
was  passed  without  much  opposition.  He  further  desired 
the  party  to  state  distinctly  in  the  resolution  touching  the 
national  debt  that  the  bonds  were  payable  in  currency. 
Mr.  E.  A.  Lawrence  offered  an  amendment  to  the  effect 
that  the  bonds  ought  to  be  taxed.  This  brought  Mr.  Has- 
kin to  his  feet  in  defense  of  the  resolutions.  He  asserted 
that  the  amendments  in  question  practically  amounted  to  a 
repudiation  of  the  national  obligations.  The  obstreperous 
faction  was  at  once  put  down  by  a  formal  ballot,  on  Mr. 

1  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  5,  1867. 


lyy]  THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1867  Y^ 

Lawrence's  motion,  of  103  to  18. *  McKeon,  seeing  the 
hopelessness  of  his  case,  permitted  the  other  resolutions 
to  pass  unobstructed.  His  action  in  denouncing  the  "craven 
heartedness  "of  the  managers  and  his  prophecy  that  their 
ticket  would  be  beaten  by  a  majority  of  20,000,  was  char- 
acterized by  Harper's  Weekly  as  "  the  only  striking  point 
in  the  whole  proceedings,"  2  while  the  Sun  looked  on  the 
McKeon  resolutions  as  "  a  jumble  of  State-rights  doctrine 
mingled  with  a  little  Declaration  of  Independence  and  con- 
siderable Andrew  Jackson."  8 

After  the  usual  amendment  and  discussion,  the  platform 
was  adopted  with  a  pledge  u  to  redeem  New  York  from 
corruption  and  misrule."  4  It  regarded  the  national  debt 
as  a  sacred  obligation.  As  was  to^be  expected,  the  Repub- 
lican party  was  denounced  for  its  reconstruction  policy. 
Article  IV  was  a  stinging  arraignment  of  the  Republicans, 
setting  forth 

the  revelations  of  corruption  in  the  management  of  the 
canals,  the  confessed  degradation  of  the  Legislature,  the  resort 
to  extraordinary  commissions  to  control  municipalities,  the 
demoralization  of  the  revenue  service,  and  the  fact  that  a  party 
holding  power  over  Congress,  the  Judiciary,  the  Executive  and 
the  Army  has  failed  to  bring  peace,  solidity  and  credit  to  the 
country.* 

The  obvious  remedy  was  the  return  of  the  Democracy  to 
power.  The  platform  assailed  the  existing  excise  law,  in 
urging  that  any  excise  law  "  which  under  the  pretext  of 
moral  reform,  invades  private  rights,  subjects  citizens  to 
vexatious  searches  and  seizures  and  interferes  with  social 

1  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  5,  1867. 

"  Harper's  Weekly,  Oct.  19,  1867,  p.  659. 

•  New  York  Sun,  Oct.  4,  1867. 

4  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  5,  1867.  *  Ibid. 


I78        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [178 

and  religious  customs,"  1  was  subversive  of  the  true  ideals 
of  American  citizenship.2  The  decision  of  Secretary  of 
State  William  L.  Macy  in  the  Koszta  case 3  was  upheld  in 
the  platform,  which  declared  for  the  protection  of  adopted, 
as  well  as  native,  citizens  in  foreign  countries.  And,  lastly, 
not  to  be  outdone  in  gallantry  by  the  Republicans,  an  ex- 
pression of  thanks  was  extended  to  the  soldiers  and  sailors 
for  their  aid  to  the  Union. 

The  strife  over  nominations  was  far  from  keen.  The 
caucus  of  candidates  was  left  entirely  to  the  up-State 
delegates.  A  slate  made  out  the  day  previous  to  the 
first  meeting  of  the  convention  contained  but  few  al- 
terations in  its  final  form.  The  chief  contest  came 
over  the  office  of  secretary  of  state.4  Mr.  John  A. 
Greene,  of  Onondaga,  was  nominated,  but  declined  the  nom- 
ination, thus  centering  the  fight  between  D.  R.  Floyd- 
Jones  and  Homer  A.  Nelson,  of  Dutchess.  Considerable 
doubt  was  thrown  upon  the  feasibility  of  Mr.  Nelson's  can- 
didacy because  of  his  attitude  upon  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment. Mr.  John  McKeon  asked  if  Mr.  Nelson  had  not  voted 
affirmatively  for  the  amendment  in  Congress,  and  when 
answered  affirmatively,  said  that  Nelson  "  would  be  de- 
feated by  10,000  majority".5    Mr.  Lanning,  who  had  nomi- 

1  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  5,  1867. 

2  See  Nation,  Oct.,  1867.  The  Nation  facetiously  suggested  that  the 
"Convention  evidently  supposed  that  drinking  lager  beer  was  some 
1  sacred  religious  rite '  which  the  intolerance  of  the  law  had  pro- 
hibited." It  declared  this  to  be  a  mistake,  that  drinking  either  whiskey 
or  beer  is  a  purely  secular  performance. 

•  Scott's,  Cases  on  International  Law,  pp.  400-1 ;  Cf.,  also,  Magoon's, 
Military  Occupation,  pp.  118-120;  for  the  correspondence  2  Wharton's 
Digest,  175,  198.  Martin  Koszta,  a  native  of  Hungary,  had  made  his 
declaration  of  intention  and  was  domiciled  in  the  United  States. 

*  New  York  World,  Oct.  5,  1867. 
6  New  York  Times,  Oct.  5,  1867. 


179]  THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1867  ^^ 

nated  Nelson,  replied  that  he  did  right  in  voting  for  the 
amendment  and  "  would  be  elected  by  twice  10,000  ma- 
jority 'V  The  vote  resulted  in  Nelson  receiving  67  votes 
to  53  for  Floyd-Jones.2  The  only  other  office  for  which 
the  nominations  came  to  vote  was  that  of  state  treasurer. 
Mr.  Wheeler  H.  Bristol,  of  Tioga,  with  43  votes,  received 
the  nomination  over  General  Jacob  H.  Hardenburgh,  of 
Ulster,  with  14.3  The  other  nominations  were  made  by  ac- 
clamation.4 Several  nominees  5  were  offered  for  the  Court 
of  Appeals,  but  all  withdrew  in  favor  of  Martin  Grover. 

That  the  convention  was  not  rushed  through  was  the  sub- 
ject of  congratulations  to  Democrats  at  the  hands  of  the 

1  New  York  Times,  Oct.  5,  1867. 

'Other  votes  were:  William  McMurray — 11;  George  B.  Scott — 2. 

•  Scattering :  Darius  Clark — 2 ;  Samuel  Worth — 1. 

*  New  York  World,  Oct.  5,  1867. 
The  Democratic  ticket  was: 

Secretary  of  State — Homer  A.  Nelson,  of  Dutchess. 
Comptroller — Judge  Wm.  F.  Allen,  of  Oswego. 
Treasurer — Wheeler  H.  Bristol,  of  Tioga. 
Attorney-General — Marshall   B.  Champlain,  of  Allegany. 
Canal  Commissioner — John  D.  Fay,  of  Monroe. 
State  Engineer  and  Surveyor — Van  Rensselaer  Richmond,  of  Wayne. 
Inspector  of  State  Prisons — Nicholas  B.  Scheu,  of  Erie. 
Judge  of  Court  of  Appeals — Martin  Grover,  of  Allegany. 
New  York  World,  Oct.  5,  i86>- 
The  State  Committee  was : 

1st  Judicial  District — Peter  B.  Sweeny  and  Charles  G.  Cornell. 
2nd  Judicial  District — Erastus  Ide  and  W.  A.  Fowler. 
3rd  Judicial  District — Peter  Cagger  and  Isaac  McCoombs,  Jr. 
4th  Judicial  District — Isaiah  Blood  and  Moore  R.  Knapp. 
5th  Judicial  District — John  A.  Greene,  Jr.  and  George  H.  Sanford. 
6th  Judicial  District— Stephen  T.  Arnot  and  N.  Wilson  Parker. 
7th  Judicial  District— E.  P.  Ross  and  C.  C.  B.  Walker. 
8th  Judicial  District — Henry  A.  Richmond  and  James  Jackson,  Jr. 
At  Large— Samuel  J.  Tilden,  Samuel  North  and  William  G.  Fargo. 
5  Mr.  Ganson,  Daniel  Pratt,  of  Onondaga,  and  George  F.  Comstock, 
of  Onondaga. 


t8o        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [t8o 

World.  "  The  result  of  the  deliberations  of  this  conven- 
tion are  such  as  no  Democrat  need  be  ashamed  ".*  Aside 
from  the  excise  and  suffrage  planks,  the  most  vulnerable 
spots  in  the  Radical  platform,  the  Sun 2  considered  the  plat- 
form to  be  made  up  of  "  filling  in  "  material.  The  idea 
seemed  to  prevail  that  the  Democratic  convention  had 
adopted  the  adage  that  it  is  better  to  say  too  little  than  too 
much.  The  various  Republican  organs  in  New  York  City 
were  differently  keyed  in  their  treatment  of  the  Democratic 
convention.  The  Commercial  Advertiser,  consistent  in  its 
feud  with  Greeley,  gave  a  cautious  approval  to  the  work 
of  the  convention. 

The  Democrats  have  acted — if  not  with  all  the  wisdom  of  their 
better  days — with  a  returning  sense  of  what  belongs  to  a  good 
Government.  Their  candidates  are  personally  unexception- 
able. [The  platform]  if  it  does  not  strengthen,  certainly  will 
not  weaken  their  ticket.  ...  It  is  not  wise  ...  as  the  Tribune 
does,  to  underrate  the  strength  of,  or  sneer  at  the  Democratic 
ticket." 

The  attitude  of  the  Tribune  may  be  aptly  illustrated  by 
Greeley's  editorial  on  silence. 

1  New  York  World,  Oct.  II,  1867. 

The  points  of  the  Democratic  candidates  were  summarized  by  the 
World : 

Nelson — age  39  years,  lawyer,  County  Judge,  Congress,  Colonel  159 
N.  Y.  Vols. 

Allen — age  50  years,  Legislature,  Judge  of  Supreme  Court. 

Bristol — engineer,  wealthy,  never  had  held  an  elective  office. 

Champlain — Legislature,   Member  Constitutional   Convention. 

Richmond — Had  held  same  office  1857-9. 

Fay — Active  canal  man,  never  had  held  an  elective  office. 

Scheu — German  Brewer  of  Buffalo,  wealthy. 

Grover — Superior  legal  attainments. 

1  New  York  Sun,  Oct.  5,  1867. 

•  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Oct.  5,  1867. 


181]  THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1867  ^ 

The  platform  adopted  by  the  Democratic  convention  in  New 
York  is  more  expressive  in  its  silence  than  in  its  language. 
It  is  silent  on  the  ancient  doctrines  of  state  sovereignty,  strict 
construction  of  the  Constitution,  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky 
ordinance  of  1798,  the  rights  of  slavery,  and  the  merits  of  free 
trade.  It  fails  to  endorse  or  compliment  President  Johnson. 
...  It  dares  not  disapprove  the  national  banking  system,  or 
the  present  tariff,  or  even  to  suggest  in  plain  terms  how  easily 
the  government  may  support  itself  by  collecting  taxes  from 
its  creditors  on  what  it  owes.  ...  It  forgets  that  it  ever  de- 
clared the  war  a  failure.  It  advocates  an  Excise  Law  under 
which  there  can  be  no  arrests,  searches  or  seizures  and  obedi- 
ence to  which  shall  be  left  to  the  influence  of  moral  suasion.1 

This  martial  array  of  unwelcome  reminders  might  well 
draw  forth  the  rebuke  of  the  Commercial  Adver- 
tiser. Had  Greeley  but  realized  it,  he  must  needs  cast 
the  beam  from  his  own  eye  before  he  could  pick  out 
the  motes  from  those  of  his  opponents,  as  the  result  of  the 
election  testified.  The  same  policy  of  underestimating  the 
Democratic  strength  was  followed  by  the  Times  and  Har- 
pers Weekly.  The  former  said  of  the  Democratic  plat- 
form that  it  was  composed  of  innocent  platitudes  and  the 
ticket  of  respectable  nonentities.  "  They  appeal  in  the 
former  to  the  prejudices,  and  in  the  latter  to  the  ignorance 
of  their  party."  2  Harper's  Weekly  did  not  profess  to  have 
seen  in  the  Democratic  convention  a  very  brilliant  sign  of 
"  the  great  reaction  ".3  "  The  convention  showed  that  the 
Democratic  party  is  the  same  party,  controlled  by  the  same 
leaders  as  for  the  last  ten  years  ".* 

In  keeping  with  the  Republican  abuse  of  the  Democratic 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  8,  1867. 

•  New  York  Times,  Oct.  5,  1867. 

*  Harper's  Weekly,  Oct.  19,   1867,  p.  659. 
4  Ibid. 


1S2        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [j82 

convention  at  the  hands  of  the  City  papers,  the  Republican 
State  journals  found  no  good  in  it,  with  the  exception  of 
the  Utica  Morning  Herald,  which  admitted  that  the  ticket 
contained  some  good  names.1  Mr.  Roberts  saw  in  the 
McKeon  revolt  signs  of  hope  for  a  reorganized  Democ- 
racy.2 A  metaphor  conveyed  the  contempt  of  the  Buffalo 
Express,  which  may  be  taken  as  typical  of  the  up-State 
Republican  attitude  towards  Democracy  in  the  early  cam- 
paign :  "  Never  was  there  a  combination  selected  for  a 
ballot  which  bore  so  distinctly  the  mildew  of  defeat  upon 
its  swaddling  clothes  as  this."  3 

Contrasted  with  the  slur  of  the  Republican  organs  on  the 
Albany  convention,  the  up-State  Democratic  editorial  opin- 
ions rang  true,  a  statement  which  is  made  advisedly.  The 
confidence  of  the  State  Democrats  was  marked.  The  har- 
mony of  the  Albany  convention  could  mean  but  one  thing. 
The  reaction  in  favor  of  Democracy  had  begun.4  The 
Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser  marveled :  "  Even 

1  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Oct.  5,  1867. 

•  Ibid. 

•  Buffalo  Express,  Oct.  7,  1867. 

"  The  platform  pledges  itself  to  redeem  the  State  from  corruption 
and  misrule  when  its  accession  to  power  would  only  plunge  it  more 
deeply  into  that  vortex." 

Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  Oct.  5,  1867. 

•  Democracy  is  at  least  consistent  in  not  placing  upon  the  ticket 
a  single  soldier.  They  vaporize  through  Seymour's  speech  of 
1  putting  down  the  rebellion,'  but  they  are  careful  not  to  provide 
for  a  single  one  of  those  who  really  '  put  down  the  rebellion,'  by 
nominating  him  for  office.  .  .  .  Few  soldiers  would  take  it  .  .  .  Our 
heroes  and  the  Democracy  are  at  antipodes."  The  editor  was  prone 
to  forget  that  in  the  previous  election  attacks  had  been  made  on  the 
Democrats  because  they  were  trying  to  win  the  election  on  the  popu- 
larity of  the  soldiers. 

Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Oct.  5,  1867. 

4  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Oct.  5,  1867;  Buffalo  Daily 
Courier,  Oct.  5,  1867;  Utica  Daily  Observer,  Oct.  5,  1867. 


183]  THE  CONVENTIONS  OF  1867  jg^ 

that  annual  fire-brand  of  Democratic  state  conventions,  the 
contest  of  seats  between  Tammany  and  Mozart  Halls,  was 
by  mutual  consent  and  without  a  murmur  stifled  under  the 
prevalent  feeling.  .  .  ."  1 

1  Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  Oct.  5,  1867. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

The  Democratic  Reaction 

The  Rtepublicans  at  the  inception  of  the  active  campaign 
of  1867  attempted  to  throw  the  burden  of  proof  upon  the 
Democrats,  making  issue  on  matters  of  national  import- 
ance. But  the  Democrats  were  too  wary  to  be  coaxed  from 
their  snug  haven  of  State  issues,  the  entrance  to  which  was 
studded  with  rocks  and  shoals,  dangerous  to  the  New  York 
Republican  Ship  of  State.  The  Times  gave  evidence  of  the 
line  of  Republican  attack  in  an  editorial  dated  October  4, 
1867. 

Naturally  enough,  the  Democratic  State  convention  seeks  to 
bring  State  and  local  issues  into  the  foreground  in  the  pending 
canvass.  The  attempt  will  not  succeed.  The  thing  cannot  be 
done.  This,  on  some  accounts,  is  greatly  to  be  regretted,  for 
there  are  many  questions  connected  with  State  politics  of  great 
importance,  which  demand  prompt  and  decisive  decisions. 
But,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case  they  must  be  postponed. 
The  restoration  of  the  Union  is  the  main  question  before  the 
country  and  must  so  remain  until  it  is  finally  decided.1 

The  Times,  in  its  attitude  of  conciliation  and  loyalty, 
further  maintained  that  the  Congressional  plan  of  recon- 
struction was  the  only  plan  before  the  country.  "  It  is  that 
or  nothing."  2 

In  conducting  the  fall  campaign,  the  Tribune  repudiated 

1  New  York  Times,  Oct.  4,  1867. 

"  Ibid. 

184  [184 


185]  THE  DEMOCRATIC  REACTION  185 

the  Radical  resolution  on  the  excise  and  Sunday  laws.1 
The  laxity  in  the  enforcement  of  these  laws  increased  the 
activity  of  the  Prohibition  party  and  the  various  temper- 
ance organizations,  making  the  Prohibition  movement  one 
to  be  reckoned  with.  The  constitutionality  of  the  excise 
act,  recently  passed,  had  been  unanimously  confirmed  by 
the  Court  of  Appeals,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  it  had  been 
questioned  by  certain  of  New  York  City's  honored  judges.2 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  17,  1867. 

2  Harper's  Weekly,  Jan.  19,  1867,  p.  34,  summarized,  from  the  report  of 
the  Police  Board,  the  condition  of  the  City  in  respect  to  the  retail  liquor 
trade  when  the  board  of  excise  was  organized.  "  On  the  first  of  May, 
1866,  there  were  9,250  places  where  intoxicating  liquors  were  publicly 
sold.  Of  this  number  only  754  pretended  to  have  licenses  leaving  about 
8,500  open  violators  of  the  existing  law.  The  State  law  already  for- 
bade the  sale  of  liquor  on  Sunday,  but  at  all  of  these  9,250  places  the 
law  was  publicly  violated  every  Sunday.  From  the  sale  of  licenses 
there  should  have  been  a  large  revenue,  and  for  some  years  there  had 
been  boards  of  excise  to  grant  licenses.  Yet  in  i860,  the  city 
revenue  from  this  source  was  $54,580,  which  was  equal  to  1,819 
licenses  at  $30  each.  In  1864  the  revenue  had  dwindled  to  $12,450, 
equal  to  the  proceeds  of  only  415  licenses  at  the  same  rate.  The 
board  under  the  new  law  established  two  classes  of  licenses,  one 
class  of  $250  permitting  the  sale  of  strong  liquor  to  be  drunk  on 
the  premises;  and  one  of  $100  for  the  sale  of  ale  and  beer  only. 
Of  these  licenses  5,697  were  issued,  3,567  of  the  first  class  and  2,098 
of  the  second.  The  total  amount  of  revenue  thus  collected  was 
$1,108,925.  Early  in  June  the  Cardozo  batteries  were  in  full  play 
upon  the  board.  Eight  hundred  and  fifty-four  suits  were  entered  and 
as  many  injunctions  granted,  of  which  that  illustrious  ornament  of 
an  elective  judiciary  issued  *  704.  .  .  .  This  cannonade  silenced  the 
operation  of  the  excise  board  about  July  first,  until  the  highest 
judicial  decision  could  be  obtained.  The  advantage  of  the  law  to  the 
revenue  and  the  saving  to  the  tax-payers  we  have  already  mentioned. 
Its  service  to  public  order  may  be  estimated  from  the  fact  that  on 
eight  Sundays  of  May  and  June  in  1865,  under  the  old  system,  the 
arrests  of  drunken  and  disorderly  persons  were  1,078:  on  eight  Sun- 
days of  the  same  months  in  1866,  under  the  new  system,  there  were 
523,  showing  a  difference  of  555-  But  when  the  Cardozian  raid  upon 
the  law  took  effect,  the  comparative  result  was  as  follows.  On  the 
thirteen  Sundays  of  July,  August  and  September  in  1865,  the  arrests 
were  2094.  on  the  corresponding  days  of  1866  they  were  2125." 


l86        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [^86 

The  light  made  by  the  liquor  interests,  aided  by  a  corrupt 
judiciary  under  the  inspiration  of  William  M.  Tweed, 
against  the  excise  and  Sunday  laws  for  New  York  City 
furnished  one  of  the  chief  centers  of  battle  in  the  local 
election.  Greeley  made  his  action  in  repudiation  of  the 
excise  movement  an  occasion  for  a  personal  tilt  with  Ray- 
mond, whom  he  tried  to  make  appear  as  having  gone  back 
on  his  temperance  pledges  made  in  1854  when  running  for 
lieutenant-governor  of  New  York.1  It  is  hard  to  see  what 
Greeley  expected  to  gain  by  this  attack,  other  than  personal 
gratification. 

The  Democrats,  in  general,  counted  upon  the  public  dis- 
satisfaction, caused  by  Republican  excesses  in  office  and 
the  absurdities  of  prominent  members  of  the  party,  to  turn 
the  campaign  in  their  favor;  while  the  Republicans,  ad- 
mitting that  there  was  corruption  in  their  midst,  sought  to 
show  a  greater  corruption  in  the  unpatriotic  course  of  the 
Democratic  party.  It  was  on  these  points  that  the  active 
campaign  was  waged.  Both  sides  paused  to  await  the  ver- 
dict of  the  early  fall  elections. 

The  October  elections,  held  on  the  8th  in  Ohio  and  Iowa 
for  State  officers,  and  in  Pennsylvania  for  a  judge  of  the 
supreme  court,  as  well  as  members  of  the  legislature,  gave 
warning  of  the  result  to  follow  in  New  York.  Pennsyl- 
vania went  Democratic  by  a  majority  of  922  on  the  vote 
for  judge  of  the  supreme  court.2  Ohio,  although  it  selected 
Rutherford  B.  Hayes  for  the  governorship  over  Allen  G. 
Thurman  by  a  majority  of  less  than  3,000,  sent  in  a  Demo- 
cratic legislature  and  defeated  the  negro  suffrage  amend- 
ment by  a  vote  of  over  50,000.*    In  Iowa,  as  in  all  other 4 

1  New  York  Times,  Oct.  5,  1867. 

"  Tribune  Almanac,  1868,  p.  44.  ■  Ibid.,  p.  45. 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  43-72.     Cf.  also  New  York  papers,  Oct.  8-14,  1867. 


igy]  THE  DEMOCRATIC  REACTION  ^y 

of  the  States  holding  local  elections,  the  Democrats  showed 
a  startling  increase  in  their  strength. 

At  once  all  Republican  papers  and  leaders  throughout 
the  nation  attempted  an  explantion  of  the  phenome- 
non.1 Especially  did  Greeley  and  the  Republican  edi- 
tors of  New  York  State  attempt  a  solution.  Among  the 
general  causes  given  for  the  weakening  in  Republican 
strength  were:  the  mistakes  of  the  Radicals  in  their  atti- 
tude toward  negro  suffrage;  Reconstruction;  the  general 
reaction  in  business  extending  over  the  whole  country  due 
to  a  return  to  normal  phases  of  business  activity,  prices  and 
and  life;  and  the  advocacy  by  the  Western  Democrats  of 
the  payment  of  the  five-twenty  bonds  in  greenbacks.  Con- 
ditions in  New  York  point  to  negro  suffrage  and  the  un- 
settled status  of  business  as  the  causes  which  chiefly  af- 
fected New  York  State. 

Raymond,  with  his  characteristic  independence,  cautioned 
the  Republicans  to  put  forth  greater  prudence  in  the  man- 
agement of  party  interests  if  they  wished  to  retain  the 
State.  He  could  not  help  but  show  his  wound,  though 
healed. 

The  leadership  of  the  Republican  Party  has  grown  arrogant 
and  reckless.  .  .  .  The  most  extreme  theories  of  the  wildest 
and  most  impracticable  theorists  have  been  forced  upon  the 
party  as  the  basis  of  its  creed :  and  the  oldest,  strongest  and 
most  devoted  and  efficient  men  of  the  party  have  been  spurned 
and  traduced,  with  reckless  violence,  if  they  failed  or  faltered 
in  giving  their  assent.* 

Mr.  Greeley,  in  commenting  upon  the  election  in  Penn- 
sylvania, issued  a  warning  to  the  Republicans  of  New  York. 

1  See  Letters  of  John  Sherman;  The  Nation,  Nov.  14,  1867;  Rhodes, 
History  of  the  United  States. 
*  New  York  Times,  Oct.  10,  1867. 


iSS        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [jgg 

It  was  supposed  that  anything-  would  be  elected  that  could  get 
on  the  Republican  ticket ;  so  nominations  were  made  that  the 
people  would  not  support ;  while  the  Democrats,  having  little 
hope  of  success,  nominated  three  soldiers,  who  had  a  good  war 
record,  for  the  best  offices,  and  so  gained  thousands  of  votes. 
We  trust  the  lesson  will  not  be  lost  on  those  who  control  nom- 
inations in  our  state.  We  can  tell  them  that  the  legislative 
jobbers  and  railroad  robbers  who  are  'fixing  things'  in  several 
districts  to  nominate  themselves  to  our  next  Legislature  may 
buy  ever  so  many  delegates,  but  cannot  buy  the  people.  Mr. 
Jacob  Sharp,  for  example,  will  waste  his  money  if  he  uses  it 
to  achieve  a  Republican  nomination.1 

In  the  same  vein  the  Times  warned  the  Republican  man- 
agers that  several  nominations  already  made,  if  persisted 
in,  would  cost  the  State  ticket  a  good  many  votes.  The  two 
most  conspicuous  cases  2  were  those  of  Senator  Williams, 
of  the  Cayuga  district,  who  had  had  a  notorious  legislative 
career,  and  Matt  P.  Bemis,  of  Chautauqua,  who  had  been 
renominated  for  the  assembly.  The  Albany  Evening  Jour- 
nal spoke  of  the  renomination  of  Senator  Williams  in  the 
Cayuga  and  Wayne  districts  as  having  been  perfectly  "reg- 
ular "  and  as  therefore  binding  on  every  Republican  voter. 
The  convention  by  which  it  was  made  consisted  of  thirteen 
delegates,  six  from  Wayne  and  seven  from  Cayuga.  It  is 
true  that  the  teller  of  the  convention  certified  that  Williams 
had  seven  votes ;  but  every  one  of  the  seven  delegates  from 
Cayuga  made  an  affidavit  that  he  had  not  voted  for  him.3 
The  Times  asked,  "  Now,  if  a  nomination  thus  made  can 
be    deemed    regular  ...  we   should    like   to   know   what 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  10,  1867. 

1  Other  cases  were — Mr.  Kimball,  of  Franklin ;  Gideon  Searle  and 
E.  C.  Topliff,  of  Cattaraugus.  A  portion  of  the  Republicans  of  Cat- 
taraugus petitioned  against  nominations  of  the  latter  two.  New  York 
Evening  Post,  Oct.  23,  1867. 

•  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Oct.,  1867. 


189]  THE  DEMOCRATIC  REACTION  ^g 

would  be  deemed  irregular."  "  The  Commercial  Adver- 
tiser asked  regarding  Mr.  Bemis — "  Are  the  Republican 
electors  of  Chautauqua  so  fallen  that  they  desire  to  be  rep- 
resented in  the  legislature  by  a  man  who  was  for  a  long 
time  hiding  in  Canada  to  avoid  the  service  of  process  upon 
a  charge  of  legislative  corruption  ?  "  2 

While  the  Republicans  were  universally  explaining  the 
October  defeat,  saying  that  it  was  but  a  falling  off  from  the 
Republican  vote  rather  than  an  increase  in  Democratic 
strength,  the  Democrats  were  uniformly  rejoiced.  The 
Democrats  of  New  York  seemed  to  feel  victory  in  the  air. 
An  ever-ready  political  indicator,  Fernando  Wood,  the 
first  boss  of  Tammany,3  at  once  openly  made  his  plans  to 
place  himself  as  the  next  mayor  of  New  York.  He  com- 
placently laid  down  his  platform,  and  gave  his  nomination 
to  the  most  faithful  of  his  henchmen. 

On  the  evening  of  October  16,  1867,  a  large,  enthusiastic 
Republican  rally  was  held  in  Cooper  Union  to  ratify  the 
Republican  nominations.  The  sentiment  of  the  meeting 
was  easily  revealed  by  the  mottoes  pendent  from  the  ceil- 
ing. Chief  among  them  were :  "  Andrew  Johnson — 
Traitor,  Renegade,  Outcast  " ;  "  Our  Statesmen — Fenton. 
Conkling,    Morgan,    Van    Wyck,    Tremaine,    Hutchins ". 

1  New  York  Times,  Oct.  31,  1867. 

*  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Oct.  2,  1867.  Bemis  came  from 
Fenton's  district.  The  Commercial  Advertiser  positively  remarks — 
"  Bemis  claims  to  be  the  especial  friend  of  Governor  Fenton,  in 
whose  name  he  negotiates  for  the  Governor's  autograph  to  bills,  and 
for  whom,  as  he  claimed,  he  obtained  money  last  winter  at  Albany 
from  the  Central  Railroad.  We  do  not  say  that  this  was  done  for 
Governor  Fenton  or  with  his  knowledge.  Bemis  either  told  the  truth 
or  obtained  money  under  false  pretences.  This,  at  any  rate,  is  time  to 
test  the  question.  If  it  is  true,  then  it  is  easy  to  see  why  the  Gov- 
ernor wants  Bemis  in  the  legislature.  If  false,  decent  considera- 
tions of  self-respect  will  induce  him  to  veto  that  nomination." 

•  Gustavus  Myers,  History  of  Tammany  Hall,  passim. 


I90        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [Tg0 

Prominent  among  those  present  were  Ex-Governor  Mor- 
gan, Horace  Greeley,  Chauncey  M."  Depew,  John  A.  Ken- 
nedy, William  M.  Evarts,  Charles  S.  Spencer,  John  Coch- 
rane and  Peter  Cooper.  Horace  Greeley's  hold  on  the 
party  at  this  time  was  in  a  small  way  indicated  by  the  hur- 
ricane of  applause  with  which  he  was  greeted  when  he  read 
the  resolutions  of  the  meeting,  the  tenor  of  which  was  to 
uphold  the  worthiness  of  certain  of  the  Republican  candi- 
dates for  office,  while  the  plank  in  the  convention  platform 
which  condemned  corruption  was  strongly  approved.1 
William  M.  Evarts  in  addressing  the  assemblage  struck  the 
keynote  of  the  campaign.  "  The  Democrats  now  seek  to 
restore  the  '  lost  cause  \  It  is  Pendleton  and  Vallandig- 
ham,  of  Ohio,  and  Seymour  and  Wood,  of  New  York,  and 
Pierce,  of  New  Hampshire,  trying  to  restore  the  triumph 
of  the  beaten  rebellion.  Shall  we  allow  the  Government  to 
pass  into  the  hands  of  such  men?"2  Ex-Governor  Mor- 
gan made  the  chief  address  of  the  evening.  He  referred 
to  the  Congressional  conditions  imposed  by  Congress 
on  the  lately  rebellious  States  as  a  vital  necessity  to 
the  country's  safety.  He  maintained  that  the  only  true 
safeguards  against  civil  disorder  in  the  South  were  impar- 
tial manhood  suffrage  and  popular  education.  The  cur- 
rency should  be  returned  to  a  firm  specie  basis  and  all  debts 
paid.  Chauncey  M.  Depew  next  spoke,  "  with  the  wis- 
dom that  surpasseth  knowledge,"  on  the  question  of  taxa- 
tion, State  and  National.  He  "  counseled  Congress  to 
meet  every  proposition  tending  to  increase  taxation,  when 
not  demanded  by  the  soundest  statesmanship,  with  em- 
phatic refusal  ".3 

1  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  17,  1867.  2  Ibid. 

8  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  17,  1867.  On  October  23,  1867,  Speaker 
Colfax  crowded  Cooper  Union  with  Radicals.  He  argued  in  favor  of 
Grant  and  demanded  Johnson's  impeachment.  New  York  Tribune, 
Oct.  24,  1867. 


I9I]  THE  DEMOCRATIC  REACTION  I9I 

It  would  not  be  in  accord  with  fact  to  state  that  the 
Democrats  gave  themselves  up  entirely  to  rejoicing  as  a 
result  of  the  October  indications  of  a  Democratic  victory 
in  November.1  Both  the  Sun  and  the  World  issued  warn- 
ings to  the  Democratic  party  to  beware  of  excesses.  "  The 
tendency  of  successful  parties,"  reminded  the  World,  "  is 
to  forget  that  society  never  stands  still  .  .  .  that  the  policy 
of  a  past  generation  can  never  exactly  tally  with  the  wants 
of  the  present." 2  That  a  similar  reaction  against  the 
Unionists  in  favor  of  Democracy  had  swept  the  country 
from  New  York  to  Illinois  in  1862,  was  pointed  out  by  the 
Herald,3  but  the  advantage  had  been  swept  away  by  the 
blunder  of  following  Copperhead  leaders.  Doubtless  the 
attitude  of  caution  which  the  Democracy  of  New  York 
State  assumed  after  it  had  become  apparent  that  the  tide 
was  setting  in  its  favor  had  much  to  do  with  the  Novem- 
ber victory.  Certain  it  is  that  the  Democratic  press  all 
modeled  after  the  World  in  emphasizing  the  futility  of 
counting  their  victory  before  it  had  been  won. 

The  ratification-  of  the  Democratic  State  and  local 
tickets  occurred  on  October  25th.  Horatio  Seymour, 
Hon.  Henry  C.  Murphy  and  Mr.  J.  G.  Martin  were  the 
prominent  speakers.  By  placing  the  charge  "  upon  the  Re- 
publican party  that  they  have  been  less  patriotic  than  our- 
selves," 4  Mr.  Seymour  afforded  a  few  of  his  hearers,  at 

1  New  York  Evening  Post,  Oct.  17,  1867.  "  We  have  always  agreed 
with  the  Democrats  on  the  subjects  of  free  trade,  the  currency, 
state  independence,  and  local  self-government,  but  it  must  not  be 
inferred  that  we  are  wholly  satisfied  with  them,  either  in  the  past 
or  present." 

1  New  York  World,  Oct.  II,  1867;  Oct.  18,  1867;  Oct.  26,  1867. 

»  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  14,  1867. 

4  New  York  Times,  Oct.  25,  1867 ;  also  cf.  New  York  Evening  Post, 
Oct.  25,  1867. 


192        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [Tg2 

least,  an  acrid  pleasure.  Moreover,  he  generously  ad- 
mitted, in  view  of  his  broad  public  life  and  wide  experience 
with  men,  that  had  the  Democratic  party  been  placed  in 
the  same  temptation  as  had  the  Radicals,  the  former  would 
have  erred  just  as  grievously.  That  was  a  good  deal  from 
Seymour.  It  is  not  beyond  the  range  of  probability  that 
Seymour's  knack  in  skilfully  dodging  the  real  issues,  as  in 
his  convention  speech,  and  his  diplomatic  endeavors  to  as- 
suage the  bitter  feelings  of  the  war-time,  brought  the 
Democrats  many  votes. 

Party  managers  on  both  sides  kept  their  weather  eye 
upon  the  Presidential  canvass  for  the  following  year. 
Thus  early,  the  Times  predicted  that  a  military  hero  would 
perforce  be  nominated,  if  the  party  were  not  to  be  over- 
whelmed in  defeat.1  The  feeling  was  prevalent  that  had 
the  elections  of  1867  gone  with  the  usual  Radical  flavor 
almost  any  man  whom  the  party  chose  to  nominate  for 
President  would  be  easily  elected.  Perhaps  the  prefer- 
ence would  have  gone  to  Justice  Chase.  However,  the 
election  results,  especially  in  Ohio,  demonstrated  how  great 
had  been  the  revulsion  of  feeling  away  from  the  principles 
for  which  Judge  Chase  and  his  colleagues  stood.  The 
name  of  Grant,  under  the  existing  circumstances,  was  in 
the  minds  of  both  Radicals  and  Democrats  as  the  most 
available  candidate.2 

1  New  York  Times,  Oct  17,  1867. 

1  James  Ford  Rhodes,  The  History  of  the  United  States.  The  New 
York  Herald,  Oct.  14,  1867,  and  the  New  York  Commercial  Advert- 
iser, Nov.  8,  1867,  urged  Grant's  name  strongly.  The  New  York 
World,  Oct.  12,  and  17,  1867,  attempted  to  persuade  Grant  that  he 
had  not  the  slightest  chance  of  election.  New  York  Tribune,  Nov. 
8.  1867.  Greeley  professed  to  see  in  Pendleton,  of  Ohio,  Democratic 
candidate  for  vice-president  in  1864,  the  next  Democratic  President 
and  apropos  of  the  defeat  of  negro  suffrage  in  Ohio  stated  that  Val- 
landigham  (noted  Copperhead)  would  be  able  to  beat  Grant  if  the 
blacks  were  not  enfranchised. 


!93]  THE  DEM0CRATIC  REACTION  I93 

Mid-campaign  found  both  parties  exhibiting  general 
apathy.1  In  New  York  City  more  interest  was  displayed 
in  the  coming  charter  elections  than  in  those  of  the  State. 
The  orators  of  the  Republicans  spent  all  their  powder  on 
the  policy  of  reconstruction  without  adding  anything  new, 
and  made  people  grow  weary  in  disgust.2  As  events  proved, 
the  people  cared  more  about  taxation  than  threats  of  im- 
peachment. Messrs.  Sumner's  and  Stevens'  theories  as  to 
Republican  government  in  States  had  less  interest  than  the 
Congressional  efforts  at  retrenchment.  The  various  leak- 
ages in  the  national  treasury  due  to  fraud  had  greater 
charm  than  legislation  fostered  in  favor  of  special  inter- 
ests. The  question  of  inflation  was  a  more  potent  cause 
for  terror  than  the  probabilities  of  proscriptive  legisla- 
tion at  the  hands  of  extremists.  These  were  a  few  of  the 
more  important  points  wherein  the  political  managers  of 
the  Republicans  failed  to  gauge  the  thoughts  of  the 
more  intelligent  people.  That  the  Times  understood  this 
failure  on  the  part  of  the  Republicans  is  shown  by  its  early 
preparation  for  disaster.  On  October  25th  it  announced 
that  "  the  Republican  party  has  an  up-hill  task  in  the 
coming  election,  but  it  is  making  a  vigorous  and  resolute 
effort  for  success.  The  State  is  very  close  at  best  and  the 
October  elections  in  other  States  always  exert  a  very  de- 
cided influence  on  our  own."  8 

On  October  24th  a  State  convention  of  brewers, 
hop  growers  and  liquor  dealers  was  held  in  New  York 
City.  So  prominent  had  the  excise  question  become 
in  the  campaign  that  the  liquor  interests  were  in  grave 
fear  lest  the  excise  law,  if  not  checked,  should  be  the 
forerunner  of  Prohibition.     Candidates  for  the  assembly 

1  New  York  Sun,  Oct.  22,  1867. 
•  New  York  Times,  Oct.  23,  186;. 
■  New  York  Times,  Oct.  25,  1867. 


I94        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [194 

and  senate  were  nominated  and  were  pledged  to  work  for 
the  appeal  on  the  amendment  of  the  excise  law.1  Arthur 
Brown,  of  Oswego,  was  elected  president  of  the  conven- 
tion and  Richard  Katzenmeyer,  of  New  York,  secretary. 
A  series  of  resolutions  were  drawn  up  decrying  the  ex- 
cise law  and  with  altruistic  motive  pointing  out  the  way 
whereby  the  ethical  and  physical  condition  of  men  could 
be  uplifted  by  a  gradual  emancipation  from  the  drink 
habit.2 

Another  matter  which  had  considerable  effect  upon  the 
brewers'  convention,  and  a  decided  effect  upon  the  cam- 
paign as  a  whole,  was  the  discovery  by  the  revenue  and 
treasury  officials  of  large  frauds  among  certain  New  York 
distilling  firms.3  These  discoveries  were  made  in  connec- 
tion with  investigation  into  whiskey  frauds  all  over  the 
country,  but  especially  in  the  East.  The  brewers  were 
keenly  alive  to  the  discredit  and  suspicion  cast  upon  them 
by  the  dishonesty  of  certain  of  their  number.  Moreover, 
they  felt  the  reflex  action  because  the  frauds  had  occurred 
during  their  regime.    The  Herald*  the  Evening  Post,5  and 

lNew  York  Times,  Oct.  25,  1867. 

1  New  York  Times,  Oct.  25,  1867.  The  appeal  made  by  the  con- 
vention of  brewers  to  the  Argumentum  ad  hominem  is  humorous  in 
the  extreme  .  .  .  "  the  most  effective  way  to  check  intemperance  is 
gradually  to  detach  the  people  from  their  old  habits  of  drinking  s'rong 
and  ardent  spirits,  by  placing  within  their  reach  a  mild  nutritious  sub- 
stitute containing  stimulating  power,  in  a  less  degree.  .  .  .  Malt 
liquors,  in  consequence  of  their  dietetic,  nutritious,  tonic  and  other 
wholesome  qualities,  their  purity  and  their  tendency,  when  used  as  a 
beverage,  to  gradually  create  a  distaste  for  strong  liquor,  have  been 
found  to  be  the  most  wholesome,  but  at  the  same  time  the  cheapest 
substitute." 

'The  disclosures  in  connection  with  the  Bourbon  Company  of  New 
York  City  created  the  greatest  outcry.  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  21, 
1867.     New  York  Herald,  Oct.  21,  1867. 

4  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  21,  1867. 

6  New  York  Evening  Post,  Oct.  8,  1867 ;  Nov.  13,  1867. 


195]  THE  DEM0CRATIC  REACTION  I95 

the  World  l  gave  especial  attention  to  the  whiskey  fraud 
disclosures  in  New  York.  The  Evening  Post  did  not  con- 
fine itself  to  the  whiskey  frauds  but  boldly  attacked  the 
customs  revenue  collections  in  New  York  City,  stating  that 
"  the  amount  of  cigars  and  manufactured  tobacco  pro- 
duced in  the  City  of  New  York  and  paying  no  tax  is  so 
great  as  to  demand  the  special  attention  of  the  depart- 
ment ".2  Under  the  caption  "  The  Way  the  Government  is 
served ",  the  Nation  pointed  out  that  through  frauds, 
waste  and  the  incompetency  of  employees  at  the  New  York 
custom  house,  from  $12,000,000  to  $25,000,000  was  lost 
to  the  United  States  annually.3 

As  a  result  of  the  attacks  of  the  Nation  and  the  Evening 
Post  on  the  custom  and  revenue  officers  of  the  administra- 
tion, and  the  constant  hostility  of  the  Commercial  Adver- 
tiser 4  towards  the  Tribune,  Horace  Greeley  turned  his 
batteries  upon  these  publications,  including  the  Times,  in 
the  conservative  group.  A  merry  internecine  war  fol- 
lowed between  the  two  groups  of  journals  representing  the 
Conservative  and  the  Radical  factions  of  the  Republicans. 
While  Greeley,  as  commander  of  the  Radical  faction,  was 
leading  the  cohorts  of  lesser  State  journals  against  such 
"  political  wire-workers  and  hangers  on  "  as  the  Commer- 
cial Advertiser  5  and  the  Times  and  the  Nation,  who  were 
"  filling  the  air  with  raven  croakings  and  doleful  prognos- 
tications ",6    the    Democrats,    taking    advantage    of    this 

1  New  York  World,  Oct.  10,  1867 ;  Oct.  17,  1867. 

•  New  York  Evening  Post,  Oct.  8,  1867. 

■  The  Nation,  vol.  i,  ii,  p.  198,  Feb.  15,  1866. 

4  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Oct.  2,  1867;  Oct.  22,  1867,  et  al. 

•  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Oct.  2,  1867.  The  Commercial 
Advertiser  was  extremely  bitter  against  Greeley  for  supporting  Sena- 
tor Humphrey,  of  Wyoming,  for  re-election,  against  whom  he  had 
previously  directed   his   blows   for  corruption. 

•  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  22,  1867. 


ig6        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [jgg 

brotherly  falling-out,  exerted  every  energy  to  gain  votes. 

As  the  campaign  wore  on,  the  politics  of  New  York  City 
became  extremely  complex,  not  because  of  any  acute  condi- 
tions in  the  affairs  of  the  City  at  the  time  but  rather  on  ac- 
count of  a  glut  in  political  organizations.  By  the  middle  of  Oc- 
tober no  less  than  seven  distinct  organizations  were  at  work 
in  the  City.  In  several  instances  several  regular  candidates 
were  running  for  the  same  office,  in  addition  to  self -nomi- 
nated "  Independents  ".  The  various  organizations  formed 
chiefly  from  intestine  dissensions  were  as  follows :  the 
Union  Republicans,  Radical  Republicans,  Tammany  Hall, 
Mozart  Hall,  the  McKeon  Democracy,  the  Union  Democ- 
racy and  the  Constitutional  Union  party.  The  first  two 
represented  respectively  the  Conservative  and  the  Radical 
factions  of  the  Republican  party,  Tammany  Hall  stood  for 
the  Democrats,  Mozart  Hall  was  the  political  child  of  Fer- 
nando Wood  which  had  been  brought  into  the  world  for 
the  purpose  of  aggrandizing  Fernando.1  John  McKeon, 
who  had  broken  with  Tammany  Hall  through  its  failure 
to  divide  up  patronage  among  his  followers  to  his  satis- 
faction, had  followed  Wood's  example  and  had  organized 
a  party  all  his  own.  The  remaining  two  parties  had  origin 
in  quarrels  with  Tammany  over  spoils.  The  last  three  or- 
ganizations— the  McKeon  Democracy,  the  Union  Democ- 
racy, and  the  Constitutional  Union  party — all  Democratic 
— were  managed  solely  for  "  bargain  and  sale  " ; 2  that  is, 
they  threw  their  influence  wherever  it  would  command  the 
highest  price.  However,  it  is  estimated  that  their  total 
voting  strength  would  not  exceed  five  thousand.     The  first 

1  Mozart  Hall  was  organized  by  Fernando  Wood  in  1858  for  the 
purpose  of  making  Wood  a  political  power  in  New  York  City.  It 
nominated  him  for  Mayor  in  1861,  but  he  was  defeated  by  a  small 
plurality.     After  1866  Mozart  Hall  put  no  candidates  in  the  field. 

*  New  York  Times,  Oct.  27,  1867. 


197]  THE  DEMOCRATIC  REACTION  197 

four  organizations  mentioned,  viz. :  the  two  wings  of  the 
Republicans  and  the  Tammany  and  Mozart  Democrats, 
possessed  considerable  strength. 

The  Union  Republicans  nominated  no  candidates  except 
for  State  senators  and  assemblymen.  Either  with  pre- 
meditation and  malice  aforethought  or  by  a  sublime  jug- 
gling we  find  the  name  of  William  M.  Tweed  as  a  candi- 
date on  both  the  Union  Republican  and  Tammany  tickets. 
A.  Oakey  Hall  was  a  candidate  for  district  attorney  upon 
every  ticket  of  Democratic  color  except  the  Union  Democ- 
racy. The  name  of  Albert  Cardozo,  patron  of  immigrants, 
was  found  upon  the  entire  five  of  the  Democratic  tickets 
for  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court.1 

Much  to  the  chagrin  and  fear  of  the  Republicans,  the 
venality  of  the  Republican  legislature  was  given  a  fresh 
airing.  On  October  26,  1867,  State  Senator  Wolcott  J. 
Humphrey,  of  Wyoming,  was  arrested  at  Warsaw  on  a 
warrant  issued  upon  an  affidavit  made  by  Hugh  B.  Will- 
son  2  which  charged  him  with  bribery  and  corruption  in 
office.  It  appears  that  Senator  Humphrey  during  the  ses- 
sion of  1867  was  a  member  of  the  senate  railroad  com- 
mittee, and  had  declared,  so  his  accuser  claimed,  that  he 
would  hold  up  certain  legislation  in  the  committee  unless 
he  was  paid  five  hundred  dollars.  If  the  bill  passed  the 
senate  he  was  to  receive  a  further  $2,500.  The  deponent 
claimed  that  he  had  been  personally  told  by  the  accused  that 
the  five  hundred  dollars  had  been  received. 

The  Citizens'  Association  of  New  York  took  up  the 
charges.  The  other  two  members  of  the  "  ring  "  which 
controlled  action   in   the  senate  railroad   committee   were 

1  The  Times  for  October  27,  1867,  gives  a  complete  and  carefully 
prepared  table  of  the  various  nominations. 

8  For  the  affidavit  of  Hugh  B.  Willson  in  full  see  New  York  Times, 
Oct.  28,  1867. 


I98        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [198 

Stephen  K.  Williams  and  Mr.  Sutherland,  of  Westchester 
County.  Mr.  Williams  had  been  publicly  accused  of  hav- 
ing received  $5,000  for  three  successive  terms — he  had 
been  on  the  same  committee  for  two  terms — to  report  the 
New  York  Central  Fare  Bill.1  At  the  same  time  it  was 
understood  that  Mr.  Williams  would  vote  against  it  in  the 
senate,  thus  deceive  his  constituency  to  whom  the  bill  was 
obnoxious.  Mr.  Willson's  interest  in  the  charges  was  neither 
partisan  nor  pecuniary.  He  had  spent  the  greater  part  of 
two  legislative  sessions  at  Albany  as  the  agent  and  repre- 
sentative of  an  association  of  men  who  sought  to  obtain  a 
charter  for  the  construction  of  an  underground  railroad. 
Willson  claimed  that  the  fact  had  been  demonstrated  to 
his  entire  satisfaction,  that  members  of  both  houses  of  the 
legislature  made  offer  of  their  votes  both  in  committees 
and  in  the  chamber.2  The  charges  resulted  as  usual  in  such 
cases — not  proved.  Senator  Humphrey  was  renominated 
by  the  Republicans  of  his  district.  The  Buffalo  Express 
defended  the  nomination  and  charged  that  the  attack  on 
his  character  was  a  "  Democratic  Plot  ".s  In  commenting 
on  the  renomination  of  Humphrey  by  the  Republicans,  the 
Herald  aimed  a  direct  blow  at  the  probity  of  the  legis- 
lature. 

It  will,  however,  be  immaterial  which  way  the  trial  may  go. 
...  If  Senator  Humphrey  should  be  convicted  he  will  only 
have  proved  himself  the  fitter  candidate  for  the  State  Legislat- 
ure .  .  .  unless  it  be  regarded  as  a  mean  job  for  a  Senator  to 

1  New  York  Times,  Nov.  1,  1867.  A  subsequent  correspondent  in 
the  Times  corrected  this  statement  to  the  effect  that  Williams,  in 
1865,  received  $5,000  to  report  the  bill  from  the  committee.  He  after- 
wards was  to  receive  $5,000  if  it  passed  the  senate.  When  the  bill 
came  before  the  senate,  Williams  failed  to  vote  for  it  and  was 
forced  to  give  back  the  $5,000  under  threat  of  exposure. 

1  New  York  Times,  Oct.  30,  1867. 

8  Buffalo  Express,  Oct.  26,  1867. 


199]  THE  DEMOCRATIC  REACTION  199 

sell  himself  so  low  as  five  hundred  dollars,  and  as  improperly- 
depressing-  the  market  for  Assemblymen  and  lobbymen.1 

The  World  contributed  its  share  to  the  exposure  of  the 
dark  ways  of  public  officers,  by  using  with  telling  effect 
against  the  Republicans  the  admission  of  Auditor  Benton, 
president  of  the  State  contracting  board,  that  he  had  re- 
ceived and  disbursed  thousands  under  the  pretext  of  erect- 
ing a  public  hall.2  Small  comfort  was  afforded  the  Repub- 
licans by  the  Times,  which  decried  certain  of  the  Repub- 
lican nominations  as  loudly  as  did  the  Democratic  organs. 
4*  If  the  Republican  party  will  take  the  responsibility  of 
nominating  men  who  have  laid  themselves  open  to  such 
charges,  the  welfare  of  the  party  will  be  best  promoted  by 
their  defeat,"  8  reveals  the  opinion  of  the  Times,  which  may 
be  taken  as  representing  the  best  sentiment  among  the  Re- 
publican organs.4 

1  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  28,  1867. 

1  New  York  World,  Oct  16,  1867;  Oct.  22,  1867;  Oct.  24,  1867,  et  al. 

*  New  York  Times,  Oct.  30,  1867. 

4  Harper's  Weekly,  May  4,  1867,  p.  274. 

The  editorials  of  Harper's  Weekly  may  be  taken  as  representative 
of  the  better  class  of  criticism  which  was  heaped  upon  the  New  York 
legislature  because  of  its  corruptness.  "The  Senale  kno.vs  that  the 
air  is  thick  with  this  talk  of  venality  in  the  Legislature  and  that  it  is 
expected  the  Constitutional  Convention  will  supply  some  remedy.  In- 
deed nobody,  probably,  will  deny  that  the  pressure  of  business  upon 
the  Legislature  is  overwhelming:  that  the  most  important  bills  are 
rushed  through  at  the  last  moment  .  .  .  :  that  the  most  outrageous 
jobs  are  constantly  presented  in  the  form  of  bills  and  that  they  are 
passed  or  defeated  only  by  the  most  enormous  expenditure  of  money. 
These  are  undeniable  fac4s.  .  .  .  How  shall  it  be  remedied?  .  .  .  The 
great  remedy  is  of  another  kind,  for  it  is  moral.  A  purer  public 
opinion :  a  refusal  to  submit  to  exactions  even  if  refusal  be  very 
costly:  a  relentless  exposure  of  persons  and  attempts:  a  willingness 
of  good  men  to  take  offices  at  personal  sacrifices:  a  clear  percept  on 
of  the  national  ruin  which  inevitably  follows  the  mad  greed  of  gold. 
....  The   most   cunning  Constitutional   Convention   cannot   devise   a 


200        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [200 

The  Republicans  throughout  the  campaign  attempted  to 
counteract  the  Democratic  attacks  on  the  corruption  among 
the  Republican  officers  and  in  the  legislature,  by  charging 
to  the  "  Ring  "  controlled  by  William  M.  Tweed  a  multi- 
tude of  "  robberies  ".*  However,  the  Republicans  were 
compromised  in  their  attempt  to  make  political  capital  out 
of  Tweed  and  Tammany  Hall,  by  the  fact  that  Tweed  him- 
self was  a  candidate  for  State  senator  on  the  Union  (or 
Conservative)  Republican  ticket.  Apropos  of  Tweed's 
nomination  the  Tribune  called  for  the  opinion  of  the  Times, 
the  representative  of  conservatism.  The  latter  replied — 
"We  regard  the  nomination  as  one  'not  fit  to  be  made  '  .  . 
if  Conservative  Republicans  or  any  other  Republicans  can 
find  no  better  representative  than  W.  M.  Tweed,  we  trust 
they  will  be  kept  out  of  office  permanently."  2 

A  general  awakening  to  the  machinations  of  the  "Tweed 
Ring  ",  as  controlled  under  the  name  of  Tammany  Hall, 
was  becoming  current  at  this  time.3  Before  any  actual  dis- 
closures as  to  the  operations  of  Tammany  had  been  made, 
the  generosity  displayed  in  building  a  new  hall  on  Four- 
teenth Street  had  aroused  the  suspicions  of  the  people. 
During  the  course  of  its  construction  the  building  funds 
became  insufficient.  Grand  Sachem  John  Kelly,  stated 
that  a  loan  of  $250,000  was  needed;  $75,000  had  been  sub- 
scribed immediately,  fifteen  members  alone  having  sub- 
system which  will  create  an  honest  government  out  of  a  dishonest  com 
munity.  Every  thoughtful  individual  citizen  of  the  state  must  set  his 
face  sternly  and  unswervingly  against  every  form  of  corruption  di- 
rect or  indirect,  and  then  we  shall  have  a  beginning  of  reform. 
Howling  at  the  Legislature  for  corruption  and  then  bribing  it  will 
not  purify  that  body." 

1  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Oct.  31,  1867.     Roberts  scored  Tweed  and 
the  legislative  purity  unmercifully. 

*  New  York  Times,  Oct.  30,  1867. 

*  See  Myers,  The  History  of  Tammany  Hall,  p.  252. 


201]  THE  DEMOCRATIC  REACTION  20I 

scribed  $10,000  each.1  Moreover,  what  was  more  aston- 
ishing happened  when  Peter  B.  Sweeny,  the  City  cham- 
berlain, gave  to  the  City  for  the  benefit  of  taxpayers  over 
$200,000  in  fees  and  interest  money  which  were  his  law- 
fully. 2  Harper's  Weekly  was  the  first  organ  of  note  to 
direct  thus  early  an  unceasing  fire  on  the  "  throttling  iron 
ring  "  3  which  held  New  York  City  at  its  mercy.4 

In  viewing  the  campaign  through  the  eyes  of  the  State 
journals  one  is  impressed  with  the  conservatism  of  the  Re- 
publican editors.  The  leading  Republican  organs  of  the 
State  constantly  warned  their  party  that  victory  could  not 
be  earned  by  stirring  up  the  past  record  of  Democracy,  but 
only  by  constructive  efforts.  The  volume  of  Republican 
editorial  warning  increased  after  the  results  of  the  October 
elections  became  known.8  At  the  same  time  the  Republican 
State  editors  pretended  to  consider  the  October  reverses  as 
indicative  of  poor  Republican  organization,  nothing  more.6 

The  Republican  State  editors,  however,  were  not  conser- 
vative to  the  extent  that  President  Johnson  or  his  policy 
escaped  severe  censure.7     Neither  did  they  fail  to  direct 

1  Myers,  op.  cit.,  p.  257;  Cf.  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  10,  1867. 
1  Myers,  op.  cit.,  p.  257. 

*  Harper's  Weekly,  Jan.  5,  1867,  p.  2,  May  5,  1867,  p.  274. 

*  The  gigantic  frauds  perpetrated  on  the  people  of  New  York  State 
were  not  definitely  exposed  until  1871. 

•Buffalo  Express,  Oct.  11,  1867;  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Oct. 
7,  1867;  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Oct.  10,  14,  1867;  Broome  Weekly 
Republican,  Oct.  2,  1867. 

•Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Oct.  II,  1867.  The  Buffalo  Daily  Courier, 
Oct.  19,  1867,  (Dem  )  saw  in  the  October  elections  "  disgust  at  the 
fruits  and  fear  of  the  results  of  'Radical  rule."  Liquor  laws,  local 
quarrels,  unpopular  candidates  or  apathy  were  not  the  cause. 

'Buffalo  Commercial  Advertiser,  Oct.  2,  1867;  Rochester  Daily 
Democrat,  Oct.  26,  28,  1867.  The  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Oct.  14, 
1867,  however,  repented  of  its  support  of  the  Rad'cal  Congress  dur- 
ing the  mid-campaign.  It  considered  that  Congress  was  neglecting 
the  national  interests  of  the  country  in  the  interest  of  strengthening 
the  Radical  parly  at  the  expense  of  the  South. 


202        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [202 

attacks  against  the  Democratic  stand  for  greenbacks  and 
equal  taxation,  nor  against  payment  of  the  debt.1  Further 
the  matter  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  constantly 
urged,  especially  in  connection  with  the  discussion  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1867,  which  had  adjourned 
over  the  election.2 

The  opposition  organs  of  the  State  fought  over  the  action 
of  the  Constitutional  Convention  in  taking  an  adjournment 
more  uniformly  than  those  of  the  City.  The  Republican 
organs  maintained  that,  even  if  it  were  illegal  for  the  con- 
vention to  adjourn,  the  legislature  would  legitimatize  its 
acts  upon  reconvening.3  On  the  other  hand,  the  Democratic 
papers  assumed  that  the  convention  was  legally  dead  and 
made  all  manner  of  ridicule  over  its  preference  to  die  rather 
than  to  swallow  its  own  medicine — negro  suffrage.4 

It  was  in  the  matter  of  Republican  corruption,  neverthe- 
less, that  the  Democratic  State  journals  found  their  adver- 
saries weakest  spot.  The  Republicans  denied  as  best  they 
could  that  corruption  and  dissensions  had  lodged  in  their 
midst,5  but  the  Democrats  would  not  be  silenced.  It  was 
disclosed  that  an  organized  revolt  had  occurred  in  the  Re- 
publican ranks  of  Yates  County  under  the  leadership  of  the 
Penn  Yan  Chronicle.6  In  Genesee  County  great  dissatisfac- 
tion had  occurred  among  the  Republicans  over  the  over- 
throw of  Judge  Taggart  by  the  county  committee,  t  The 
arrest  of  Senator  Humphrey,  the  Republican  candidate,  has 

1  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Oct.  23,  1867;  Buffalo  Commercial  Ad- 
vertiser, Oct.  7,  1867.  2  Vide  infra,  ch.  ix. 

•Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  September  28,  1867;  Broome  Weekly 
Republican,  Sept.  25,  1867. 

*  Utica  Daily  Observer,  Sept.  25,  1867;  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Sept. 
26,  1867. 

6  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Oct.  10,  26,  28,  30 ;  Nov.  4,  1867. 

6  See  Penn  Yan  Chronicle,  Sept.  27,  28,  29,  1867 ;  Oct.  6,  8,  10,  1867. 

7  Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  Oct.  12,  1867. 


203]  THE  DEMOCRATIC  REACTION  203 

already  been  referred  to.1  In  Chautauqua  County,  Hon.  D. 
H.Waite  had  severed  his  connection  with  the  Chautauqua 
Democrat,  a  Republican  organ.2  Mr.  Waite  had  bitterly 
denounced  the  nominating  convention  which  had  nomi- 
nated, and  was  controlled  by,  such  "  Rottens  "  3  as  Messrs. 
Williams,  Sessions  and  Bemis.  Further  Republican  disso- 
lution had  occurred  in  Monroe,  Cayuga  and  Seneca  coun- 
ties.4 Practically  all  of  the  up-State  Republican  organs 
preferred  to  go  no  further  with  the  charges  of  corruption 
lodged  against  them  than  a  plain  denial.  The  Daily  Demo- 
crat was  an  exception  to  the  rule.  It  devoted  considerable 
energy  to  the  defense  of  Senator  Humphrey,5  and  of  John 
M.  Hammond,  the  Republican  candidate  for  canal  commis- 
sioner who  had  been  accused  of  wrong  doing  in  connection 
with  the  canal  board  in  1855.'  The  Democratic  journals 
of  the  State  took  great  delight  in  reviewing  old  editorials 
of  staunch  Republican  papers,  such  as  the  Albany  Evening 
Journal.  The  Syracuse  Courier  and  Union  proved  a  veri- 
table thorn  in  the  flesh  of  the  Evening  Journal.  During 
the  previous  spring  the  Evening  Journal  had  exhibited  great 
disgust  with  the  venality  of  the  Republican  legislature  at 
Albany,  which  was  then  in  the  throes  of  the  Erie  Railroad 
war.  The  Evening  Journal  had  also  predicted  the  down- 
fall of  Thaddeus  Stevens  7  and  had  severely  criticised  the 
tinkering  with  the  New  York  City  municipal  laws.8 

1  Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  Oct.  12,  1867,  supra,  p.  197. 
■  Chautauqua  Democrat,  Oct.  1,  2,  3,  1867. 

•  The  term  "  Rottens "  was  used  to  designate  corrupt  candidates. 
4  Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  Oct.  12,  22,  26,  1867. 

•  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Oct.  26,  28,  30,  1867. 

•  Ibid.,  Oct.  21,  1867.  The  Daily  Democrat  cleared  Mr.  Hammond 
to  its  complete  satisfaction,  which  appeared  in  keeping  with  the  re- 
port of  the  former  investigating  committee. 

'  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Apr.  29,  1867. 

8  Albany  Evening  Journal,  quoted  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union, 
May  15,  1867. 


204        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [204 

The  excise  movement  was  especially  fostered  under  the 
benign  influence  of  the  Tribune.  On  October  29th,  a  mam- 
moth meeting  was  held  at  Cooper  Union,  where  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Newman  Hall,  a  famous  London  divine  visiting 
in  this  country,  gave  the  chief  address.  Greeley  also  spoke. 
He  incisively  attacked  the  liquor  dealers'  position,  showing 
that  the  excise  act  was  not  a  new  law,  as  Sunday  liquor 
selling  had  long  been  enacted  against,  but  that  the  law  had 
been  ignored.     "  The  opponents  of  the  law,"  said  Greeley, 

do  not  desire  to  repeal :  they  only  want  tolerated  lawlessness, 
and  with  that  they  would  be  satisfied.  They  cry  out  against 
the  State  Police,  because  that  body  faithfully  enforces  a  State 
Law.  Give  us  Wood  or  Hoffman  with  a  city  Police  and  the 
law  would  become  a  dead  letter  and  the  liquor  interests  would 
be  happy.1 

The  weak  position  taken  by  Mr.  Schenck,  chairman  of 
the  Radical  Congressional  committee,  in  his  address  to  the 
States  having  November  elections,  added  to  the  Republicans' 
embarrassment.  He  appealed  for  Republican  victories  as 
the  only  means  of  preventing  a  renewal  of  armed  rebellion. 
He  feared  that  unless  the  November  elections  went  Repub- 
lican, President  Johnson  would  disperse  Congress  by  force 
or  resort  to  violence  in  some  form.  He  was  right  in  his 
statement  that  people  demanded  the  prompt  completion  of 
the  work  of  Reconstruction.  But  he  would  have  been  of 
much  greater  power  in  the  approaching  elections  if,  instead 
of  exciting  passions,  he  had  sought  to  allay  some  of  the  ap- 
prehension that  justly  disturbed  the  public  mind  regarding 
the  failure  of  Radical  Reconstruction  to  work  according  to 
plan.2 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  30,  i36>. 
'  New  York  Times,  Oct.  31,  1867. 


205]  THE  DEMOCRATIC  REACTION  205 

The  Democrats  held  their  last  grand  rally  on  October 
31,  1867,  at  Cooper  Union.  It  was  in  reality  their  first 
united  meeting.  Mr.  James  T.  Brady,  as  chairman  of  the 
meeting,  voiced  its  sentiments  when  he  referred  to  the 
present  leaders  of  the  Radical  party  with  such  little  pleas- 
antries as  that  "  miserable  dirty  dog  Sumner  and  the  super- 
annuated old  fool  Stevens  ".x  Charles  S.  Thayer  empha- 
sized the  necessity  of  winning  New  York  City,  if  the  Demo- 
cratic party  would  win  the  State.  Outside  timber  was  im- 
ported in  the  shape  of  Mr.  Voorhees,  of  Indiana,  and  Mont- 
gomery Blair.  Both  discussed  the  issues  from  a  national 
viewpoint.  Samuel  S.  Cox  provoked  storms  of  laughter 
and  applause  with  his  mythical  illustrations  2  of  God  shak- 
ing the  Republicans  over  Hell,  their  safety  depending  either 
on  the  sincerity  of  their  repentance  or  the  strength  of  their 
breeches. 

That  the  Republicans  were  not  alone  in  their  family 
troubles  was  made  apparent  through  the  Democratic  papers 
outside  the  State.  These  were  less  reserved  than  the  local 
organs,  whose  silence  was  significant.  The  schism  which 
existed  within  the  Democratic  ranks  was  as  real  as  that 
within  the  lines  of  their  opponents,  and  it  caused  constant 
jealousies,  lukewarmness,  and  a  widespread  disgust.  A 
writer  to  the  Charleston  Courier  said  that 

honest  Democrats,  disgusted  with  the  men  put  in  nomination 
in  this  section3  of  the  State,  will  either  abstain  from  voting  or 
support  the  Radical  ticket.  .  .  .  The  politicians  can  manage  the 
people  a  good  deal,  but  there  are  always  in  an  intellectual  com- 
munity like  New  York,  enough  respectable  voters  left  who 
will  not  do  the  bidding  of  the  party,  when  it  compels  them  to 
vote  for  prize-fighters,  gamblers  or  rum-sellers.  .  .  .* 

1  New  York  Times,  Nov.  1,  1867.  Ibid. 

•  South-eastern. 

4  Charleston  Courier.     Quoted  in  New  York  Times,  Nov    1,  T867. 


206        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [2o6 

Just  prior  to  the  close  of  the  campaign,  Homer  A.  Nel- 
son, Democratic  candidate  for  secretary  of  state,  made  a 
final  bid  for  the  temperance  vote  of  the  State  in  a  letter  to 
E.  C.  Delavan.  In  part  it  read :  "  I  have  to  say  that  I  sym- 
pathize warmly  with  the  temperance  reformers.  I  believe 
drunkenness  to  be  the  bane  of  the  working  classes.  .  .  . 
But  I  cannot  violate  a  principle,  and  do  not  think  it  right 
because  some  persons  abuse  a  benefit,  that  others  should 
be  deprived  of  it."  '  The  Democrats  also  kept  before  the 
public  mind  to  the  end  the  failure  of  the  Constitutional 
Convention,  which  had  met  in  1867  under  Republican  con- 
trol, to  come  to  a  vote  on  the  question  of  negro  suffrage 
before  adjournment.2  This  act  of  apparent  cowardice  or 
of  low  political  strategy  proved  a  great  source  of  weak- 
ness to  the  Republicans  in  the  campaign.  The  Democrats 
universally  urged  that  the  Republicans  of  New  York  were 
afraid  to  take  their  own  medicine. 

As  its  last  contribution  to  the  campaign,  the  World  re- 
viewed the  canal  frauds  under  the  Republican  administra- 
tion.3 The  World,  further,  attempted  to  awaken  an  inter- 
est in  and  make  political  capital  out  of  the  relation  of  the 
State  banking  system  to  the  national  system  under  the  new 
law.  It  attempted  to  show  how  the  State  was  the  loser. 
However,  the  question  failed  to  arouse  much  interest,  being 
more  a  subject  of  national  politics  and  of  Supreme  Court 
decisions.4 

Massachusetts,  Maryland,  Minnesota,  Wisconsin,  with 
New  York,  held  elections   for  State  officers   and  legisla- 

1  Quoted  in  New  York  World,  Oct.  30,  1867. 

1  The  ensuing  chapter  will  discuss  the  Constitutional  Convention 
of  1867  in  detail. 

■  New  York  World,  Nov.  2,  1867. 

*  New  York  World,  Oct.  29,  1867 ;  Nov.  5,  1867.  Cf.  the  Report  of 
the  State  Commission  of  Banks,  New  York  for  1867. 


207]  THE  DEMOCRATIC  REACTION  20y 

tures.  New  Jersey  and  Kansas  chose  State  legislatures, 
while  in  Michigan,  Illinois,  Missouri  and  Nevada,  elections 
were  held  for  county  officers.  The  interest  felt  through- 
out the  country  over  the  November  elections,  especially 
those  of  New  York,  was  intense.  As  usual,  both  parties 
claimed  to  be  confident  of  carrying  the  State  by  decided 
majorities,  but  the  boast  of  the  Republicans  lacked  the  ring 
of  belief.  True,  Governor  Fenton's  vote  of  the  previous 
year  had  carried  with  it  a  13,789  ■  majority,  but  that,  out 
of  an  aggregate  vote  of  720  000,  was  rather  a  small  mar- 
gin for  sure  calculation.  This  was  especially  true  consid- 
ering the  drift  of  political  favor  from  the  Republicans. 
The  Times  consoled  itself  by  "  believing  that  whatever  the 
result  may  be,  it  cannot  have  any  disastrous  effect  upon  the 
country.  It  cannot  prevent  the  success  of  the  Republican 
party  at  the  presidential  election  next  year."  2 

It  was  due  to  no  fault  of  the  weather,  that  old  standby 
of  Republicans,  that  they  did  not  win.  The  day  was  per- 
fect. Apparently  in  this  case  it  took  more  than  the  weather 
to  bring  out  both  parties.  The  falling  off  in  numbers  could 
be  explained  only  by  the  lack  of  any  popular  State  issue. 
The  Republicans  maintained,  or  affected  to  maintain,  that 
from  a  political  viewpoint  the  State  offices  to  be  filled  were 
not  of  the  highest  importance.  There  were  neither  Con- 
gressional elections  nor  a  legislature  to  be  elected  which 
would  choose  a  Senator.  Why  the  Republicans  should  have 
claimed  that  the  election  had  neither  an  intimate  nor  a  re- 
mote bearing  upon  national  politics,  is  one  of  those  questions 
ever  so  gigantic  because  so  simple.  The  result  was  a  com- 
plete landslide  for  the  Democrats.  Nelson,  for  secretary 
of  state  with  a  majority  of  47,930  votes  out  of  a  total  of 

1  Tribune  Almanac,  1867,  p.  51. 
•  New  York  Times,  Nov.  5,  1867. 


208        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [208 

698,128  cast,1  was  second  in  the  running  to  John  D.  Fay, 
the  Democratic  candidate  for  canal  commissioner,  who  had 
a  majority  of  50,277.  Thomas  Hillhouse,  for  comptroller, 
led  his  associates  upon  the  Republican  ticket  with  a  total  of 
325,658* 

Although  a  number  of  arrests  for  illegal  voting  and  riot- 
ing occurred,  the  election  in  New  York  City,  in  general, 
was  very  quiet.  The  crowds  around  the  newspaper  offices 
were  immense  but  good  humor  prevailed,  the  general  opin- 
ion being  that  the  result  was  a  foregone  conclusion.  The 
Democrats,  in  addition  to  carrying  every  State  office,  prac- 
tically made  a  clean  sweep  in  New  York  City.  One  Repub- 
lican 3  and  an  Independent 4  were  sent  to  the  assembly  from 
New  York  City.     The  chief  point  of  interest  in  the  local 

1  Tribune  Almanac,  1868,  p.  49. 

2  Ibid. 

The  results  follow: 

Republican. 

Secretary  of  State James  B.  McKean 325,009 

Comptroller Thomas  Hillhouse 325,658 

Treasurer Theodore  B.  Gates 325,201 

Attorney-General Joshua  M.  Van  Cott 325,328 

State  Engineer Archibald  C.  Powell 324,775 

Canal  Commissioner John  M.  Hammond 322,509 

Prison  Inspector , Gilbert  De  La  Matyr 325,018 

Judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals .  Charles  Mason  324,477 

Dem. 
Democrat.  Maj. 

Secretary  of  State Homer  A.  Nelson 373,029    47,930 

Comptroller William  F.  Allen 372,517    46,859 

Treasurer Wheeler  H.  Bristol 372,769    47,568 

Attorney-General Marshall  B .  Chamberlain .  372,648    47,320 

State  Engineer Van  Rens.  Richmond 364,702    39,933 

Canal  Commissioner John  D .  Fay 372, 786    50,277 

Prison  Inspector Solomon  Scheu 372,828    47,810 

Judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals .  Martin  Grover  364,849    40,372 

8  George  B.  Van  Brunt — 20th  District. 

4  James  Irving — 16th  District. 


209]  THE  DEMOCRATIC  REACTION  209 

election  appeared  to  center  around  the  enforcement  of  the 
excise  law.1 

The  Tribune  blamed  the  New  York  Republican  papers 
for  a  large  part  in  the  default  of  voters  at  the  polls.  Gree- 
ley claimed  that  they  had  influenced  the  State  vote  to  the 
extent  of  50,000. 2  He  also  laid  a  large  share  of  the  fault 
at  the  door  of  the  canal  frauds  and  peculations  during  the 
past  three  years.  The  corrupt  politicians  who  had  by  hook 
or  crook  managed  to  have  themselves  nominated  upon  the 
Republican  ticket  came  in  for  their  share  of  blame. 

We  are  beaten  by  the  Republicans  this  year  and  the  work  of 
reconstruction  is  thus  practically  delayed,  if  not  arrested. 
The  Southern  rebels  are  virtually  told  by  the  State  of  New 
York  "Hold  on!  vote  against  Conventions  wherever  you  are 
strong  enough  to  defeat  them  ;  refuse  to  vote  wherever  you 
can  thus  hope  to  discredit  and  damage  the  process  more  than 
by  voting,  and  you  may  again  resume  control  of  your  respec- 
tive States,  and  trample  the  white  and  black  Unionists  under 
your  feet  through  the  disfranchisement  and  virtual  re-enslave- 
ment of  the  latter."* • 

The  explanations  of  the  Republican  State  organs  as  to 
the  cause  of  the  Republican  defeat  were  many.  Several 
minor  causes  were  cited  but  the  underlying  sentiment 
seemed  to  be  a  distrust  of  and  disgust  with  Stevens  and 
Sumner.4  The  Syracuse  Daily  Journal  placed  the  "humil- 
iation of  the  Republicans "  to  the  credit  of  Horace 
Greeley.5      The    feeble    administration    of    the    national 

1  New  York  Times,  Nov.  6,  1867. 

'  Before  the  election,  Greeley  said  that  an  omnibus  would  hold  all 
of  the  votes  that  the  said  journals  could  control. 

•  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  6,  1867. 

4  Buffalo   Commercial  Advertiser,   Nov.   7,   1867;    Ogdensburg  Daily 
Journal,  Nov.  6,  1867. 

•  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Nov.  7,  1867. 


2io        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [2io 

finances,  the  increased  debt  and  a  failure  to  meet  the  negro 
suffrage  issue  were  given  as  the  causes  by  the  Buffalo  Ex- 
press.^ To  the  Evening  Journal  the  Republican  defeat 
meant  the  abandonment  by  the  people  of  the  great  prin- 
ciple of  the  War.2  Republican  apathy,3  unworthy  nomi- 
nees,4 Democratic  reaction,5  and  fraudulent  voting  in  New 
York  City,6  were  among  other  causes  enumerated  by  the 
Republican  State  organs.  The  causes  given  for  the  Repub- 
lican defeat  were  essentially  the  same  in  the  Democratic 
State  papers.7 

The  attitude  assumed  by  the  Democrats  was  one  which 
largely  showed  their  appreciation  of  the  fact  that  the  vic- 
tory had  not  been  entirely  due  to  their  own  energies.  The 
World  wisely  warned  the  Democrats  not  to  forget  them- 
selves in  their  jubilation. 

It  will  not  do  to  assume  that  we  have  won  by  a  simple  exer- 
tion of  our  own  party  strength.  The  fact  is  true,  whether  we 
recognize  it  or  not,  that  we  are  indebted  for  this  magnificent 
and  manifold  triumph  to  citizens  who  have  not,  for  the  last 
few  years,  acted  in  the  Democratic  party.8 

A  further  aid  to  the  Democrats  was  acknowledged  by  the 

1  Buffalo  Express,  Nov.  7,  1867. 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Nov.  6,  1867. 

•  Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  Nov.  6,  1867. 

*  Ibid.  Albany  Evening  Journal,  Nov.  6,  1867;  Utica  Morning 
Herald,  Nov.  6,  1867. 

6  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Nov.  6,  1867. 

6  See  John  I.  Davenport,  The  election  and  naturalization  frauds  in 
New  York  City,  1860-70  (New  York,  1894),  p.  100  et  seq.  Ibid.  Utica 
Morning  Herald,  Nov.  6,  1867. 

'Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  Nov.  6,  1867;  Buffalo 
Daily  Courier,  Nov.  8,  1867;  Utica  Daily  Observer,  Nov.  6,  1867. 

8  New  York  World,  Nov.  7,  1867 ;  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Nov.  8, 
1867. 


2 1 1  ]  THE  DEM  OCR  A  TIC  RE  A  CTION  2 1 1 

World,  in  that  "  a  proportion  of  the  Republicans  "  stayed 
away  from  the  polls,  thus  lending  indirect  help.  It  was 
urged  that  the  true  policy  for  Democrats  to  follow  would 
be  to  render  it  easy,  or  at  least,  not  difficult,  for  the  liberal 
Republicans  to  act  with  the  Democrats  in  the  approaching 
presidential  election.1  The  general  lack  of  worry  on  the 
part  of  the  Republicans  over  their  defeat  was  quite  appar- 
ent. "  The  best  thing  that  could  happen  to  us ;  "  "  Just 
what  we  need;"  were  common  expressions  among  the 
cheerful  Republicans.2  The  shrewder  Democratic  journals, 
following  in  the  wake  of  the  World,  fully  understood  the 
inevitable  reaction  unless  the  party  pursued  a  conservative 
policy. 

1  Cf.  Harper's  Weekly,  Nov.  n,  1867,  p.  738. 
"  Harper's  Weekly,  Nov.  23,   1867. 


CHAPTER  IX 

The  Constitutional  Convention  of  1867 

composition 

The  New  York  State  Constitutional  Convention,  which  has 
been  referred  to  in  describing  the  campaign  of  1867,  was 
held  under  a  new  plan  of  representation.1  The  legislature 
passed  an  act  in  March  providing  for  a  convention  to  revise 
the  constitution.  The  election  for  delegates  was  held  on 
April  23rd  and  the  delegates  then  chosen  were  to  assemble 
at  Albany  on  the  first  Tuesday  in  June.2     The  aggregate 

1  Tribune  Almanac,   1870,  p.  32.     Amendments  submitted  since  Con- 
stitution of  1846  went  into  effect  were : 
In  1849.     On  a  Free  School  Law : 

For  the  law   248,872 

Against  the  law    91,951 

In  1850.     On  repeal  of  the  new  School  Law : 

For    184,208 

Against 209,347 

In  1854.     Completion  of  Canals : 

For    i85,77i 

Against    60,526 

In  1858.     On  a  New  Convention: 

For I35,i66 

Against    141,526 

1  Annual  Cyc,  1867,  p.  543.  All  persons  entitled  to  vote  for  a  mem- 
ber of  the  assembly  might  vote  for  the  delegates.  The  powerful  sec- 
tional feeling  still  rife  was  shown  in  the  provision  which  required  a 
voter,  if  challenged,  to  prove  his  loyalty  by  taking  an  oath  of  allegiance, 
and  swearing  that  he  had  not  borne  arms  against  the  United  States 
voluntarily,  nor  aided  the  enemy  of  the  North,  nor  held  any  real  or 
colorable  office  in  hostility  to  the  United  States,  nor  voluntarily  sup- 
ported such  authority.  Further,  he  had  to  swear  that  he  was  not  a 
212  [212 


213]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      2I^ 

number  of  delegates  was  fixed  at  160,  each  senate  district 
being  allowed  four  delegates.  Thirty-two  delegates  were 
chosen  by  the  electors  of  the  entire  State,  but  no  elector 
could  vote  for  more  than  sixteen  of  them.  State  conven- 
tions 1  were  held  by  the  political  parties,  who  each  nomi- 
nated a  ticket  of  sixteen  names,  hence  the  manner  of  voting 
insured  the  success  of  the  entire  ticket  of  each  party  for 
delegates  at  large. 

The  result  of  the  election  on  April  23rd  gave  a  majority 
of  thirty-four  to  the  Republicans.2  While  in  a  measure  it  is 
invidious  to  select  names  from  among  the  delegates,  still 
mention  of  a  few  of  the  more  familiar  will  convince  one 
that  the  men  chosen  for  the  convention  were  of  large 
calibre.  From  among  the  delegates-at-large  we  might 
select  Waldo  Hutchins,  William  M.  Evarts,  George  Op- 
dyke,  George  William  Curtis,  Horace  Greeley,  Ira  Harris, 
William  A.  Wheeler,  Charles  Andrews,  Charles  J.  Folger, 
Henry  C.  Murphy,  Joshua  M.  Van  Cott,  Homer  A.  Nelson, 
Alonzo  C.  Paige,  Francis  Kernan,  George  F.  Comstock  and 
San  ford  E.  Church:  From  among  the  districts,  the  first 
sent  William  Wickham;  the  second,  Daniel  Barnard;  the 
fifth,  Elbridge  T.  Gerry;  the  seventh,  Samuel  J.  Tilden; 
the  twelfth,  John  M.  Francis;  the  thirteenth,  Amasa  J. 
Parker;  the  nineteenth,  Theodore  W.  Dwight;  the  twenty- 
second,  Thomas  G.  Alvord;  the  twenty-ninth,  Thomas  T. 
Flagler,  and  the  thirty-second,  George  Barker.3  There 
were  men  famous  in  State  and  national  life,  judges,  law- 
deserter,  nor  had  left  the  State  in  order  to  escape  the  draft  during  the 
War.  These  qualifications  were  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  Court 
of  Appeals,  sustaining  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court.  It  was 
decided  that  the  legislature  could  not  add  to  the  qualifications  fixed  by 
the  constitution.     Green  v.  Shumway,  39  N.  Y.  418,  June,  1865. 

1  Annual  Cyc,  1867,  p.  543. 

'  Republicans,  97 ;  Democrats,  63— Rep.  maj.,  34. 

•  Convention  Documents  1867-8,  vol.  i,  pp.  1-3. 


2i4        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [214 

yers,  statesmen,  journalists,  historians  and  business  men. 
The  personnel  was  well  qualified  to  perform  satisfactorily 
any  business  that  might  come  before  the  convention.  It 
was  sufficiently  conservative  to  give  a  stability  to  a  conven- 
tion which  had  been  called  to  revise  and  improve  the  order 
of  society  rather  than  to  overturn  and  rebuild.  In  accord- 
ance with  the  act  the  convention  met  at  the  capitol  on  June 
4,  1867.  William  A.  Wheeler,  from  Malone,  was  chosen 
president.1  He  was  a  quiet  man  of  tremendous  ability,  a 
tireless  worker  and  beloved  by  all.  Luther  Caldwell  was 
made  secretary  of  the  convention,  which  immediately  set 
to  work  under  its  various  committees. 

THE  JUDICIARY   ARTICLE 

Probably  the  judiciary  article  of  the  constitution  had 
caused  more  dissatisfaction  than  any  other  portion.2  Pre- 
dictions of  its  failure  had  been  many  in  the  convention  of 
1846.  The  fact  that  it  had  proven  difficult  if  not  impos- 
sible for  the  judges  to  perform  their  functions  properly 
was  soon  discovered  to  be  the  fault,  not  of  the  men,  but  of 
the  system.  It  could  hardly  be  expected  that  with  eight  co- 
ordinate appellate  tribunals  in  the  Supreme  Court,  judicial 
harmony  would  result.  This,  in  addition  to  an  annual 
change  of  half  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  made  it  practically 
impossible  for  that  court  to  perform  its  function  properly, 
certainly,  not  with  the  promptness  that  would  have  ob- 
tained had  members  been  chosen  for  longer  terms.  The 
latter  court  was  without  doubt  in  the  greatest  need  of  at- 
tention.    The  judiciary  committee  appointed  on  June  19th 

1  Later  vice-president  of  tJ.  S.  under  Pres.  Hayes. 

i  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iv,  p.  2576.  Mr.  Alvord,  of  Onon- 
daga, said :  "  I  think  that  I  am  speaking  the  truth  when  I  say  that  the 
greatest  of  all  matters  which  called  for  this  convention  at  the  hands 
of  the  people  was  some  reform  in  the  judiciary." 


215]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      2t$ 

was  composed  of  fifteen  of  the  convention's  strong  men.1 
a  Their  patriotism,  their  high  character,  their  great  talents, 
their  distinguished  public  service,  their  successes  at  the  bar, 
in  literature,  and  statesmanship,"  says  Charles  Z.  Lincoln, 
u  have  made  them  famous  in  the  annals  of  New  York."  a 
On  August  30th,  thirteen  members  of  the  committee  joined 
in  a  report 3  presenting  a  complete  judiciary  article.  Milo 
Goodrich,  of  Tompkins,  presented  at  the  same  time  a  minor- 
ity report  which  differed  radically  from  that  of  the  ma- 
jority in  the  organization  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  and  Su- 
preme Courts. 

The  Court  of  Appeals  received  the  most  serious  attention 
of  the  committee.4  The  majority  report  proposed  a  Court 
of  Appeals  composed  of  seven  elected  judges  who  should 
hold  their  office  during  good  behavior  until  the  age  of  sev- 
enty years.  One  of  the  seven  should  be  designated  by  his 
colleagues  to  act  as  chief  judge  through  his  continuance 
in  office.  They  were  also  to  have  power  to  appoint  or  re- 
move a  clerk,  a  reporter,  and  such  other  attendants  of  the 
court  as  the  law  should  authorize.5  The  minority  report 
likewise  proposed  a  court  of  seven  judges,  who  were  to  be 
elected  by  the  people,  however,  for  terms  of  fourteen  years. 

1  New  York  Convention  Documents,  vol.  iv,  doc.  107,  p.  1.  The 
judiciary  coriimittee  was  composed  as  follows:  Charles  Folger,  Wil- 
liam M.  Evarts,  George  F.  Comstock,  Joshua  M.  Van  Cott,  Charles  P. 
Daly,  George  Barker,  Francis  Kernan,  Waldo  Hutchins,  Joseph  G. 
Masten,  Theodore  W.  Dwight,  Amasa  J.  Parker,  Charles  Andrews, 
Matthew  Hale,  Milo  Goodrich,  Edwards  Pierrepont. 

'  Lincoln,  Constitutional  History  of  New  York,  vol.  ii,  p.  248. 

1 Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  ii,  p.  2288  (1867-8).  Although  ap- 
proving of  the  majority  report,  Mr.  Comstock  withheld  his  signature 
because  of  the  absence  of  a  provision  which  was  later  adopted. 

4  In  the  court  for  the  trial  of  impeachments,  neither  proposals  nor 
changes  were  made. 

•  Convention  Documents,  1867-8,  vol.  iv,  no.  107,  pp.  2-3. 


2i6        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [2i6 

The  terms  of  the  judges  elected  under  this  system  were  so 
arranged  that  one  term  would  expire  every  two  years,  the 
chief  judge  being  designated  by  his  associates.  Both  the 
majority  and  minority  reports  allowed  the  Governor  to  fill 
a  vacancy  by  appointment  until  an  election  could  be  held. 
November  21st  saw  the  beginning  of  a  protracted  debate 
on  the  judiciary  article.1  The  amendments  proposed  upon 
the  reading  of  the  committee's  report  were  numerous  and 
perplexing.  Mr.  Ferry  proposed  an  amendment  which  re- 
sembled the  minority  report,  with  this  difference,  that  the 
judges  should  reside  during  their  tenure  of  office  at  the 
place  where  the  court  was  held  and  that  the  court  should 
always  be  open  for  business.  The  chief  objections  offered 
to  this  amendment  were  that  it  would  impose  too  great 
hardships  upon  the  judges.  Mr.  Smith,  of  Fulton,  also 
proposed  a  plan  similar  to  the  minority  report.  He  opposed 
the  system  of  life  tenure  for  judges. 

If  a  bad  man  comes  into  office  *  his  vices  are  stereotyped  for  us 
and  there  is  no  escape  from  him  during  his  life.  If,  on  the 
contrary,  a  judge  be  elected  for  a  term  of  years  and  proves  in- 
competent or  unworthy,  when  his  term  shall  have  expired  he 
will  be  out  of  the  way  and  a  suitable  man  can  be  elected  in 
his  place.3 

Mr.  Baker  proposed  nine  instead  of  seven  judges  and  a 
term  of  twelve  instead  of  fourteen  years.4  His  idea  was  to 
have  a  court  large  enough  in  numbers  to  adequately  dis- 

1  Convention  Documents,  1867-8,  vol.  iv,  no.  107,  pp.  15-58.  The 
judiciary  committee  early  in  its  sessions,  for  purposes  of  reference, 
requested  Mr.  Charles  P.  Daly  and  Mr.  T.  W.  Dwight  to  prepare 
papers  upon  the  French,  Scotch  and  English  judicial  organizations. 
Mr.  Daly  prepared  the  paper  upon  the  French  Courts,  Mr.  D  wight 
those  upon  the  Scotch  and  English. 

1  Constitutional  Proceedings,  and  Debates,  vol.  iii,  p.  2167. 

3  Ibid.  '  Ibid.,  p.  2167. 


217]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      21y 

charge  all  duties  incumbent  upon  them  without  the  need 
of  resort  to  a  commission.  Mr.  Wakeman.  continuing  the 
debate  upon  November  22nd,  declared  himself  opposed  to 
an  increased  number  of  judges.  He  proposed  to  continue 
the  number  of  judges  at  seven,  but  to  have  six  of  them 
elected  for  twelve  years,  while  the  Governor  was  to  ap- 
point a  chief  judge  who  should  hold  his  office  for  a  term 
of  twelve  years.1  Mr.  Harris,  of  Albany,  offered  a  substi- 
tute to  the  minority  report.2  It  provided  that  seven  judges 
should  be  elected  in  the  first  instance,  one  of  the  seven 
going  out  of  office  every  second  year,3  the  one  having  the 
shortest  term  to  serve  as  chief  judge,  and  that  no  judge 
who  had  served  fourteen  years  was  to  be  re-elected.  Mr. 
Beckwith,  of  Clinton,  offered  an  amendment  which  called 
for  seven  judges,  one  of  whom  should  be  appointed  by  the 
Governor  with  the  consent  of  the  senate,  who  should  hold 
office  for  twelve  years.4  Mr.  Beckwith  late  in  the  debate 
agreed  to  accede  to  Mr.  Harris'  suggestion  that  the  term 
of  office  of  the  chief  judge  be  reduced  to  twelve  years. 
The  chief  objection  to  this  proposition  was  that  it  would 
break  the  unity  of  the  court  by  creating  one  man  more 
powerful  than  the  rest. 

Mr.  Daly,  who  was  then  one  of  the  existing  judges  upon 
the  Court  of  Appeals,  on  December  5th  gave  an  historical 

1  Constitutional  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iii.  p.  2172. 

'Ibid.,  p.  2187. 

'Ibid.,  p.  2190.  They  were  to  be  classified  thus:  the  tenure  of  one 
judge  would  be  for  two  years;  of  another  for  four  years;  another 
six ;  another  eight ;  another  ten ;  another  twelve ;  and  still  another 
fourteen  years.  The  chief  judgeship  would  pass  down  from  the 
judge  first  going  out  of  office.  Each  judge  would  be  chief  judge  for 
two  years,  hence  avoiding  any  friction  among  them  in  the  effort  to 
obtain  office.  This  proposition  came  to  a  vote,  but  was  declared  lost, 
only  the  ayes  being  counted,  which  were  23. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  2190-1. 


2i8        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [2i8 

resume  of  the  defects  in  the  judiciary  system,  to  the  dis- 
paragement of  the  system  under  the  constitution  of  1846. 
Mr.  Comstock,  of  Onondaga,  a  brilliant  lawyer  and  judge, 
followed  him  with  a  proposal  for  a  court  of  seven  members, 
to  be  chosen  by  the  electors  for  a  term  of  fourteen  years, 
who  should  be  ineligible  for  a  second  term.1  "  At  the  first 
election  of  judges  under  this  constitution,  every  elector  may 
vote  for  the  chief  and  only  for  four  of  the  associate 
judges."  2  No  chief  judge  or  associate  judge  was  to  re- 
main in  office  longer  than  the  first  day  of  January  next 
succeeding  his  seventieth  birthday.  Mr.  Pond  proposed  an 
amendment 3  which  provided  for  ten  judges  in  the  Court 
of  Appeals  to  be  composed  of  four  from  the  present  court 
and  provided  for  the  election  of  six  more,  giving  each  voter 
the  right  to  vote  for  four  of  the  candidates.  The  term  of 
office  was  to  be  ten  years,  with  one  retiring  and  one  elected 
each  year.  The  court  would  be  held  every  two  months.  Pro- 
vision was  also  made  to  designate  the  chief  judge  and 
judges  who  should  hold  terms  so  that  one-half  of  the  court 
could  hold  each  alternate  term.  Mr.  W.  C.  Brown  pro- 
posed 4  a  court  of  nine  members  which  should  include  those 
then  in  office.  "  The  judges  shall  divide  from  time  to  time 
into  two  classes,  which  classes  shall  be  co-ordinate  courts 
and  shall  hold  sessions  at  such  times  as  the  general  court 
shall  appoint.  The  chief  judge  shall  divide  the  calendar 
between  them  "...  three  or  more  judges  were  to  con- 
stitute a  quorum  for  a  class.  Mr.  Graves,  of  Herkimer, 
proposed  a  Court  of  Appeals  composed  of  eight  members, 
of  whom  four  were  to  be  elected  for  eight  years  and  four 
selected  from  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  having  the 

1  Proceedings  and  Debutes,  vol.  iii,  p.  2366. 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  2367-8.  s  Ibid.,  p.  2383. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  2398-9. 


2i9]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      2Ig 

shortest  time  to  serve.  One  of  the  four  elected  was  to  be 
designated  as  chief  justice.  Mr.  Graves  also  proposed  an 
elected  judicial  commission  of  five  members  which  was  to 
continue  for  four  years  and  hear  the  causes  then  pending 
before  the  present  Court  of  Appeals. 

The  above  proposals  give  in  brief  a  general  idea  of  the 
extent  and  nature  of  the  changes  deemed  wise  by  some. 
Many  other  propositions  of  a  minor  character  were  ad- 
vanced. All  the  plans  save  one  had  as  their  basis  the  elimi- 
nation of  the  Supreme  Court  judges  from  the  Court  of  Ap- 
peals. The  variation  in  the  length  of  term  in  office  was 
marked.  It  was  this  question  over  which  the  convention 
became  divided.  The  number  of  judges  brought  forth 
varying  suggestions,  ranging  from  five  to  ten  members, 
which  met  with  general  approval.  The  methods  of  judicial 
selection  proposed  also  displayed  a  fair  degree  of  unanim- 
ity. Election  seemed  to  be  considered  the  best  way,  though 
champions  of  the  appointive  method  were  not  absent.  The 
length  of  term  brought  a  long  and  able  discussion.  As 
before  noted,  life  tenure  had  been  agreed  upon  by  the  ma- 
jority of  the  judiciary  committee.  This  included  tenure 
during  good  behavior,  and  ended,  in  any  event,  when  the 
judge  had  become  seventy  years  of  age.  The  other  plans 
proposed  a  fixed  term  which  ranged  from  eight  to  fourteen 
years.  Re-eligibility  after  the  longer  terms  was  also  pro- 
hibited.1 

Judge  Comstock  2  and  Judge  Daly,3  who  had  both  been 

1  It  seems,  as  suggested  in  the  debate,  that  the  term  of  fourteen  years 
was  applied  because  that  appeared  to  be  the  average  length  of  service 
in  the  courts  of  New  York,  other  States  and  of  the  United  States, 
where  the  tenure  during  good  behavior  had  been  applied. 

*  Speeches  may  be  found,  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iii,  pp.  2288-9, 
2300,  2383,  2440,  2536,  2600. 

1  Ibid.,  pp.  2359-65,  2372-4;  vol.  iv,  pp.  2459,  2640,  2705-6.  Mr.  Daly 
gave  a  complete  historical  review  of  the  changes  made  in  our  judicial 


220        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [220 

upon  the  Court  of  Appeals,  put  forth  able  and  lengthy  argu- 
ments in  support  of  the  majority  report.  It  remained,  how- 
ever, for  Wm.  M.  Evarts,  with  his  inimitable  skill  and 
learning,  to  urge  the  position  of  the  committee.  He  stood 
for  the  principle  of  good  behavior  during  the  period  of 
judicial  usefulness.  He  went  into  the  political  theory  back 
of  the  judiciary  at  some  length,  stating  that  the  judiciary 
is  the  representative  of  the  justice  of  the  State  and  that 
judicial  service  in  its  true  sense  was  to  declare  the  law,  not 
to  impose  it.  The  two  considerations  in  choosing  judges 
were: 

first,  how  shall  they  best  be  selected,  and  second,  how,  having 
been  thus  selected,  they  shall  best  be  preserved,  built  up,  fort- 
ified, ennobled  in  their  sentiments,  in  their  character,  in  their 

system  by  the  conventions  of  1821  and  1846,  and  the  defects  as  pointed 
out.  After  developing  historically  the  judiciary  of  England  and  the 
United  States,  he  showed  that  the  age-limit  of  seventy  was  not  too 
old;  with  illustrations  from  the  history  of  our  own  and  of  the  British 
judiciary.  "  Lord  Karnes  .  .  .  was  an  able  and  vigorous  judge  at 
eighty-five.  Lord  Mansfield  sat  with  undiminished  power  at  the  age  of 
eighty-two.  Lord  Chancellor  Lyndhurst  made  one  of  his  greatest 
speeches,  and  one  of  the  most  effective  ever  heard  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  when  he  was  eighty-one.  Chief  Justice  Marshall  presided  in 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  with  his  intellectual  faculties 
unimpaired  at  the  age  of  seventy-nine.  Chancellor  Kent  wrote  his 
Commentaries  when,  by  the  constitution  of  this  state,  he  was  no  longer 
intellectually  competent  to  be  a  judge,  and  he  continued  to  revise  and 
edit  them  .  .  .  until  he  was  past  eighty.  .  .  .  During  the  seventy  years 
that  the  judges  of  this  state  held  their  office  during  the  tenure  of  good 
behavior,  we  had  a  judiciary  that  would  compare  with  any  age  of  our 
country." 

Ibid.,  pp.  2172-4,  2187,  2197-8,  2201-2,  2223-6,  2300-3,  2448,  2507. 
Amasa  J.  Parker,  who  was  also  a  member  of  the  Committee  and  had 
signed  the  majority  report,  believed  the  independence  of  the  judiciary 
could  be  maintained  by  one  long  term. 

Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  2189,  also  pp.  1287,  2203,  2206,  2295,  2296;  vol.  iv,  pp. 
2627,  3714.  Joshua  Van  Cott  made  an  able  speech  in  defense  of  the 
majority  report. 


22 1  ]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      22I 

repute  and  their  authority,  before  the  eyes  and  in  the  opinions 
of  the  community,  in  the  administration  of  whose  justice  they 
are  to  preside.1 

Mr.  Evarts  next  stated  that  the  judge  should  hold  his  office 
during  the  pleasure  of  no  representative  of  political  power. 
" Durante  bene  placito,  is  exploded  from  our  system."  He 
maintained  that  the  mind  of  the  judge  while  on  the  bench 
should  not  be  conscious  of  any  effect  upon  his  political 
chances  through  his  acts  upon  the  bench.  He  should  feel 
and  be  unaccountable  except  for  impeachable  offenses. 
Evarts  claimed  that  in  order  for  the  State  to  obtain  the 
services  of  the  "  ten  talents  "  man,  "  she  must  offer  him  a 
career  commensurable  with  the  talents,  and  the  character, 
and  the  duty  that  belong  to  him  as  a  man."  2  Mr.  Evarts 
pleaded  eloquently  for  the  lawyer,  who,  having  accepted  ser- 
vice in  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  of  the  State  at  loss  of 
the  emoluments  and  opportunities  of  his  chosen  profes- 
sion, finds  himself  at  the  end  of  his  term,  where  it  is 
limited,  forced  to  return  to  his  profession  with  the  great 
endeavors  consequent  upon  rebuilding  his  practice,  or  to 
find  a  new  vocation  in  which  to  spend  his  declining  energies. 

This  supremacy,  this  authority  that  I  desire  is  not  personal. 
It  is  all  official.  It  is  to  help  the  Judge's  office,  not  to  ag- 
grandize the  Judge  in  his  person.  ...  I  wish  to  see  it  impress- 
ed upon  the  mind  of  the  bar,  I  wish  the  bar  to  understand  that 
the  election  of  a  judge  to  a  seat  on  the  bench  is  not  only  for 
the  life  of  the  judge,  but  it  is  for  the  lives  of  his  contemporaries 
at  the  bar.  I  wish  them  to  feel  that  they  are  not  ...  at  lib- 
erty to  plan  for  temporary  occupancies  of  the  bench,  reserving 
for  themselves  the  future  chance  when  they  become  ripe  for  it. 
.  .  .  Let  us  have  the  reflex  influence  of  an  independent  judici- 
ary upon  an  independent  bar.     Let  us  work  together.' 

1  Proceedings,  vol.  Ill,  p.  2367.     *  Ibid.,  p.  2369.        ■  Ibid.,  p.  2370. 


222        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [222 

Mr.  Evarts  admitted  that  the  difference  on  the  question 
was  largely  one  of  degree;  whether  there  should  be  a 
fourteen-year  tenure  or  tenure  during  good  behavior,  both 
with  an  age  limit.  It  is  impossible  for  an  intelligent  student 
of  political  systems  not  to  become  enthused  and  inspired 
with  the  method  in  which  he  put  forth  his  facts.  Evarts 
was  then  in  the  prime  of  his  great  career.  Charles  Z.  Lin- 
coln says,  in  speaking  of  this  address : 

Even  now,  reading  the  speech  after  thirty-five  years,  we  fall 
under  the  spell  of  the  orator,  and  can  readily  understand  how, 
as  he  rose  to  the  height  of  that  great  argument,  the  Convention 
hesitated,  and  almost  decided  to  abandon  a  fixed  judicial  term, 
and  restore  the  ancient  tenure  during  good  behavior,  with  an 
age  limit,  which  had  controlled  in  the  Colonial  days,  and 
through  the  first  seventy  years  of  our  state  history.1 

But  upon  December  4th,  Mr.  Hale's  amendment  of  ten- 
ure during  good  behavior,  or  until  judges  reach  the  age  of 
seventy  years,2  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  43  to  48. 3  The 
second  test  came  upon  Mr.  Evarts'  motion  made  December 
10th  which  was  similar  to  the  above,  the  result  being  the 
same  by  a  vote  of  56  to  58.*  The  final  vote  on  this  much- 
contested  point,  February  19th,  just  at  the  adjournment  of 
the  convention,5  brought  forth  on  the  motion  of  Erastus 
Brooks  the  same  result,  the  vote  being  45  to  61.  Out  of  a 
convention  of  160  delegates,  69  were  absent  for  the  vote 
on  the  first  of  the  above  questions,  46  on  the  second  and  64 
upon  the  third.6     On  the  final  ballot  less  than  one-third  es- 

1  Lincoln,  Constitutional  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  vol.  ii,  p.  256. 

•  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iii,  p.  2374. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  2382.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  2635. 
Adjournment  Feb.  28th. 

•  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  3727. 


223]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      22$ 

tablished  the  length  of  tenure.  With  the  exception  of  the 
abnormal  conditions  at  the  time  of  the  convention  of  1776- 
1777,  no  convention  had  made  such  important  changes  in 
the  constitution  with  such  a  small  proportion  of  the  dele- 
gates present.1 

While  those  who  advocated  the  fourteen-year  tenure 
were  firm  for  an  independent  judiciary,  they  believed  the 
result  would  be  accomplished  by  making  the  judge  ineligible 
for  re-election.  There  were  those  who  believed  that  the 
judge  might  neglect  his  official  duties  at  the  end  of  his 
term  in  the  interest  of  his  re-election.2  Others  thought 
that  even  with  a  long  term,  a  judge  might  go  out  of  office 
not  disqualified  by  age  but  embarrassed  on  re-entering  his 
profession  because  of  a  long  absence.  However,  the  opin- 
ion prevailed  that  if  the  service  of  the  judge  had  been  satis- 
factory he  would  be  re-elected  without  such  effort  upon  his 
part  as  to  detract  from  his  official  duties.3  The  question 
of  re-eligibility  of  the  judges  produced  much  discussion  and 
considerable  wavering.  Mr.  Wakeman's  motion  for  re- 
eligibility  was  carried  by  the  rather  large  majority  of  70  to 
42.- 

Time  has  shown  that  the  suggestion  so  eloquently  spon- 

1  Revised  Record  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1894,  vol.  i,  pp. 
2-6.  In  the  Convention  of  1894,  no  amendment  was  deemed  made 
unless  two-thirds  of  those  present  had  given  it  their  affirmative  vote. 
This  was  later  set  as  a  permanent  figure.  There  were  169  delegates  at 
the  convention  of  1894. 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iv,  p.  2580.  s  Ibid. 

*  Ibid.  Mr.  Young  upon  this  point  said :  "A  judge  who  metes  out 
even-handed  justice  to  all,  who  has  an  upright  and  honest  heart  in  his 
breast  .  .  .  need  not  fear  his  constituents  when  nominated  for  re- 
election. ...  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  and  judges  who  have  shown 
themselves  capable  and  worthy  will  be  kept  in  office  by  the  people,  and 
appreciated  by  them  as  long  as  they  are  competent  to  discharge  the 
duties  of  a  judge." 


224        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [224 

sored  by  Mr.  Evarts,  establishing  the  tenure  of  the  court 
during  good  behavior  with  the  age  limit  at  seventy  years, 
would  have  produced  none  of  the  fears  augured.  The 
operation  of  the  fourteen-year  rule  has  produced  practically 
the  same  result.1  Of  the  fifteen  judges  who  have  been 
elected,  not  including  those  in  office  on  January  1,  191 1, 
their  age  at  election  averaged  fifty-three  years.  It  varied 
from  forty-three  to  sixty-one  years;  six  were  under  fifty.2 
The  average  length  of  service  of  the  judges  elected,  not  in- 

I  Lincoln,  Const.  Hist,  of  New  York,  vol.  ii,  p.  261.  Of  the  fifteen, 
Judges  Church,  Peckham,  Sr.,  Grover,  Allen  and  Ruger  died  in  office. 
Judge  Rapallo,  on  being  re-elected  to  a  second  term,  died  shortly  after- 
ward. Judge  Folger,  who  was  chosen  to  the  Chief  Judgeship  in  1881, 
before  the  expiration  of  his  first  term,  resigned  to  take  the  Treasury- 
portfolio  in  President  Garfield's  cabinet.  Rufus  W.  Peckham,  Jr.,  who 
was  elected  in  1886,  resigned  in  1895  to  take  a  seat  upon  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court.  Judge  Finch  served  a  full  term.  He  retired 
December  31,  1895,  btrt  had  he  been  under  the  tenure  proposed  by  the 
majority  report  of  the  Judiciary,  he  might  have  served  until  his  seven- 
tieth birthday,  June  9,  1897.  Chief  Judge  Alton  B.  Parker,  in  order  to 
accept  the  candidacy  of  the  Democratic  party  for  the  Presidency,  re- 
signed August  5,  1904.  Judge  Martin,  elected  in  1895,  retired  Decem- 
ber 31,  1904,  having  passed  the  age-limit.  Judge  Gray  was  re-elected  to 
a  second  term  in  1902,  and  may  serve  until  the  age-limit,  December  31, 
1913.  This  would  make  a  total  of  twenty-five  years  of  judicial  service 
for  him,  exclusive  of  one  year  under  appointment.  Judge  O'Brien 
served  until  December  31,  1907,  having  been  re-elected  in  1903.  This 
made  his  total  length  of  service  eighteen  years.  Hence  eleven  Judges — 
Church,  Peckham,  Sr.,  Grover,  Allen,  Ruger,  Rapallo,  Earl,  Miller, 
Danforth,  Andrews  and  Martin — held  office  under  the  fourteen-year 
rule,  which  service  would  have  been  the  same  under  the  tenure  for  life 
proposed  by  the  majority  report.  We  see  also  that  the  term  of  the 
three  judges  who  resigned  would  have  been  the  same  under  either  rule. 

I I  have  not  included  the  figures  for  the  full  number  of  judges 
(twenty-three)  who  have  been  elected  to  the  Court  of  Appeals  up  to 
January  1,  191 1,  because  of  the  impossibility  of  exactness,  due  to  the 
probability  of  death  while  in  office,  resignation  from  or  re-election  to 
office. 


225]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      22, 

eluding  those  in  office  on  January  i,   191 1,  was  ten  and 
four-tenths  years.1 

In  the  first  section  of  this  chapter  attention  has  been 
called  to  the  attempt  made  to  organize  a  commission  of 
appeals.2  The  sentiment  of  the  convention  seemed  to  hold, 
that  the  new  court  should  not  be  overloaded  with  the  busi- 
ness which  had  been  accumulated  in  the  superseded  court. 
The  report  of  the  judiciary  committee  had  recommended 
the  inclusion  of  the  former  court  for  that  purpose,  with 
another  commission  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor. 8 
All  causes  pending  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  on  January  1, 
1868,  were  to  be  heard  and  determined  by  the  commission. 
It  was  further  provided  by  the  report,  that  the  legislature 
should  have  the  power  to  create  a  new  commission,  to  hear 
and  determine  any  causes  that  might  be  transferred  by  the 
Court  of  Appeals  to  it  at  the  end  of  ten  years  from  the  adop- 
tion of  the  constitution  as  revised.4  This  section  providing 
for  a  commission  after  ten  years  was  stricken  out  upon 
motion  of  Mr.  A.  J.  Parker. 

THE  SUPREME  COURT 

The  principal  disagreement  in  the  convention  of  1867 
over  the  Supreme  Court  came  on  the  matter  of  terms.  Little 
desire  was  manifest  to  disturb  the  judicial  districts.  The 
great  cry  against  the  Supreme  Court  had  been  the  eight 
appellate  tribunals,  which  perforce  produced  conflict  of 
decisions.  Many  proposals  were  made  in  respect  to  the  Su- 
preme Court  which  would  bring  about  the  reform  desired, 
but  only  the  most  important  will  be  given  here.  The  ma- 
jority report  proposed  that  the  State  should  be  divided  into 

1  Lincoln,  Const.  Hist.,  vol.  Hi,  pp.  261-2. 

2  Vide,  supra  ch.  ix,  p.  219. 

1  Convention  Documents.  (1867-8),  no.  107,  p.  3. 
*  Ibid.  (1867-8),  no.  107,  p.  4. 


226        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [226 

four  judicial  departments,  each  of  these  into  two  districts 
to  be  bounded  by  county  lines.  The  City  and  county  of 
New  York  were  to  form  one  district,  with  ten  justices. 
The  other  departments  were  to  have  eight  justices  each, 
making  a  total  of  thirty-four  for  the  State.  .  The  legis- 
lature was  given  power  to  provide  for  an  additional  justice 
in  each  of  the  departments,  and  one-half  of  the  justices  in 
each  department  were  to  reside  in  each  district  of  the  de- 
partment at  the  time  of  election.  Four  of  the  judges  were 
designated  to  hold  special  terms  and  circuit  courts  or  to 
preside  in  any  court  of  oyer  and  terminer.  Provision  was 
made  for  designation  of  the  justices  who  should  hold  gen- 
eral terms  and  also  of  the  chief  justice,  who  should  hold 
during  his  continuance  in  office.1  As  in  the  Court  of  Ap- 
peals, no  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  could  sit  in  review  of 
his  own  decisions.2  They  were  to  be  elected  by  depart- 
ments and  were  to  hold  office  during  good  behavior  until 
the  age  of  seventy.8 

The  minority  plan,  written  by  Mr.  Goodrich,  proposed 
the  division  of  the  State  into  three  departments.  These  de- 
partments were  to  consist  of  the  existing  judicial  districts, 
each  department  to  have  twelve  justices,  holding  for  twelve 
years  after  the  first  classification.  The  elections  were  to  be 
by  departments,  each  district  to  be  the  residence  of  an  equal 
number  as  far  as  possible.  The  legislature  could  not  legis- 
late a  judge  from  office,  though  it  had  the  right  to  add  an 
additional  justice  to  each  department  or  to  reduce  the  num- 
ber. The  presiding  justice  for  each  general  term  was  to  be 
selected  by  said  term.  He  could  not  hold  trial  or  special 
terms  or  grant  orders  renewable  in  the  general  term.  The 
presiding  justice's  chief  single  power  consisted  in  the  ap- 

1  New  York  Convention  Documents  (1867-8),  vol.  iv,  pp.  5-6. 
■  Ibid.,  5-  8  Ibid.,  9. 


227]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      22y 

pointment  or  removal  of  the  Supreme  Court  reporter.  Two 
of  the  general  term  justices  were  to  retire  at  the  end  of 
every  second  year,  other  justices  to  be  designated  for  their 
places.  The  presiding  justice  was  an  exception  to  this 
rule.1  In  each  judicial  district  general  terms  were  to  be 
held  for  the  hearing  of  causes  arising  therein.2 

We  will  simply  mention  the  more  prominent  of  the  var- 
ious other  proposals  for  the  Supreme  Court.  Mr.  Judson 
S.  Landon  proposed  the  abolition  of  the  Court  of  Appeals. 
He  would  place  appeals  in  the  Supreme  Court  only.  Matthew 
Hale  provided  for  a  Supreme  Court  composed  of  twelve 
judges,3  to  be  chosen  from  the  State  at  large,  while  eighteen 
justices,  four  in  New  York,  and  two  in  each  of  the  other 
districts,  were  to  do  the  circuit  work.  Each  district  was  to 
have  general  terms,  to  be  composed  of  three  judges  chosen 
at  large.  He  also  suggested  a  "  state  term  "  to  be  held  once 
yearly  by  seven  of  the  Supreme  Court  judges.4  Under  a 
plan  proposed  by  Mr.  Elizur  H.  Prindle,  the  State  would 
be  divided  into  three  judicial  departments  composed  of  the 
judicial  districts  then  existing.  Each  department  was  to 
have  a  general  term  composed  of  four  justices,  who  should 
have  no  other  jurisdiction.6 

The  convention  changed  the  judiciary  committee's  pro- 
posal which  had  recommended  the  election  of  justices  by 
departments,  to  election  by  districts.6    On  motion  of  Judge 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iii,  p.  1626. 

1  Revised  Record  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1894,  vol.  v,  p. 
757.  One  may  see  here  the  germ  of  the  Appellate  Division  as  now  in 
operation,  provided  for  by  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1894. 

1  Constitutional  Convention  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iv,  p.  2415. 
Mr.  Hale  states  that  for  purposes  of  distinction  he  has  called  in  his 
plan  the  men  e'ected  by  the  State  at  large  "  judges,  while  those  elected 
by  districts,  Justices." 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  2414-5.  •  Ibid.,  p.  2460.  •  Ibid.,  p.  3708. 


228        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [228 

Comstock  the  term  of  office  was  fixed  at  fourteen  years.1 
The  age  limit  was  fixed  at  the  first  day  of  January  next 
after  the  justice  shall  have  arrived  at  the  age  of  seventy,  on 
motion  of  Mr.  Prindle.2  This  date  was'  set  forward  to 
December  31st,  afterwards. 

To  make  a  brief  summary  of  the  action  of  the  conven- 
tion in  regard  to  the  Supreme  Court,  we  see  that  it  was  con- 
tinued as  it  then  existed  with  the  same  number  of  justices 
in  each  district.  Each  justice  was  elected  for  a  full  term  of 
fourteen  years,  an  extension  of  eight  years,  with  no  rotation 
in  office.  The  legislature  was  given  power  to  establish 
not  more  than  four  general  terms.  The  general  term  might 
consist  of  four  justices.  They  would  not  be  organized 
oftener  than  once  in  five  years.  The  requirement  was  made 
for  a  general  term  to  be  held  in  each  judicial  district.  No 
justice  could  sit  in  review  of  his  own  decision. 

Chapter  408  of  the  Laws  of  1870  put  the  new  judiciary 
article  into  operation.  The  first  department  was  to  consist 
of  the  first  district;  the  second,  of  the  second;  the  third, 
of  the  third,  fourth  and  sixth  districts;  and  the  fourth,  of 
the  fifth,  seventh  and  eighth  districts.3  A  presiding  justice, 
who  should  so  act  during  his  official  term,  and  two  asso- 
ciate justices  were  to  compose  the  general  terms.  The 
latter  were  to  act  in  such  capacity  for  five  years  from  De- 
cember 31st  next  following  their  appointment. 

1  Constitutional  Convention  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iv,  p.  2575. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  2281. 

•This  statute  required  general  terms  to  be  held  in  the  city  of  New 
York  for  the  first  department;  in  Brooklyn  and  Poughkeepsie  for  the 
second  department;  in  Albany  and  Plattsburgh  for  the  third  depart- 
ment ;  and  in  Buffalo,  Binghamton  and  Elmira  for  the  fourth  depart- 
ment. 


229]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      22g 
MINOR   COURTS 

The  convention  found  the  county  court  as  it  had  been 
left  by  the  convention  of  1846.  It  is  true  that  various  at- 
tempts had  been  made  since  that  time  to  enlarge  the  juris- 
diction of  the  county  court  but  without  success.  The  gen- 
eral opinion  of  the  convention  of  1867  was  in  favor  of 
an  extension  of  jurisdiction.  The  plan  of  the  majority 
report  of  the  judiciary  committee  was  that  the  county 
court  was  to  have  such  original  and  appellate  jurisdiction 
as  the  legislature  might  see  fit  to  confer  from  time  to  time.1 
The  minority  report  proposed  practically  the  same  juris- 
diction, though  it  differed  in  certain  other  respects.2  The 
convention  concluded  that  jurisdiction  should  not  be  con- 
ferred upon  the  county  courts  in  general  terms  but  should 
be  limited  to  definite  money  actions.  Hence,  the  sugges- 
tion of  Mr.  Henry  O.  Cheseboro  was  adopted,  which  gave 
the  court  original  jurisdiction  in  cases  where  the  parties 
resided  in  the  same  county  and  the  damages  claimed 
amounted  to  $1,000.*  Upon  its  acceptance  Judge  Comstock 
at  once  moved  that  the  jurisdiction  be  made  subject  to  the 
power  of  removal  to  the  Supreme  Court.4  Inasmuch  as  the 
length  of  term  of  judges  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  the  Su- 
preme Courts  and  certain  city  courts  had  been  extended, 
it  was  thought  right  to  do  likewise  to  that  of  the  county 
judges.  The  majority  report  had  proposed  seven  years,5 
the  minority  four  years.6  Mr.  Cheseboro  proposed  six 
years,  which  term  was  accepted  by  the  convention.7    Judge 

1  Convention  Documents,  vol.  iv,  no.  107,  p.  9. 

•  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iii,  p.  1627. 

•  Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  pp.  2594,  2671.  *  Ibid.,  p.  2594. 
*Neu>  York  Con.  Docs.,  vol.  iv,  no.  107,  p.  9. 

•  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iii,  p.  1627. 
''Ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  2675. 


230        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [230 

Comstock  put  through  in  the  convention  a  motion  to  the 
effect  that  the  salary  of  the  county  judge  should  be  fixed 
by  law  instead  of  by  the  board  of  supervisors.1  This 
proposition  as  advanced  by  Mr.  Ketcham  had  been  lost.2 

When  the  surrogate's  courts  were  reached,  the  committee 
took  some  advance  steps.  The  provision,  as  in  the  former 
constitution,  under  which  the  county  judge  in  the  smaller 
counties  acted  as  surrogate  was  continued.  In  the  more 
populous  counties,  the  legislature  was  given  power  to  create 
a  separate  surrogate's  office.  The  following  passage  in 
the  section  proposed  by  the  committee  gave  the  conven- 
tion much  food  for  thought. 

The  Legislature  may  create  probate  courts,  abolish  the  office 
of  Surrogate,  confer  upon  existing  courts  the  power  and  duties 
of  Surrogate  and  the  jurisdiction  of  Surrogates,  create  registers 
of  wills  and  of  the  probate  thereof,  and  of  letters  of  adminis- 
tration, and  provide  for  the  trial  by  jury  of  issues  in  Surrogates 
Courts  and  in  courts  having  the  like  powers  and  duties.5 

Mr.  Evarts  made  remarks  to  the  effect  that  the  probable 
increase  of  wealth  and  population  in  what  is  now  Greater 
New  York  would  bring  a  corresponding  increase  in  the 
number  of  probate  cases,  and  that  it  might  be  "  desirable 
that  the  legislature  should  have  the  power  to  separate  the 
mere  official  duty  of  the  surrogate,  as  the  register  of  wills, 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iv,  p.  2674. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  2608.  Mr.  Ketcham  had  proposed  to  abolish  the  office  of 
justice  of  sessions,  but  was  voted  down.  Of  these  officers  he  said : 
"  I  never  knew  of  an  instance  where  these  officers  were  consulted  and 
influenced  the  decision  of  the  court  that  they  were  not  wrong.  They 
are  mere  'figure-heads/  and  answer  no  purpose  but  10  sit  up  there  and 
look  wise  and  draw  their  pay/'  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iv,  p. 
2661. 

•  New  York  Constitutional  Convention  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol. 
iv,  p.  2634. 


231]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      2$I 

and  in  taking  formal  proof  of  uncontested  wills  and  issuing 
testamentary  papers  and  letters  of  guardianship,  from  the 
true  judicial  functions  now  discharged  by  the  surrogate."  x 
Mr.  Evarts,  doubtless,  would  be  amazed,  could  he  visit  the 
surrogates'  offices  in  New  York  City  at  the  present  day, 
where  he  would  find  a  far  greater  differentiation  in  the  sur- 
rogate's work  than  he  may  have  ever  dreamed.  Mr.  E.  A. 
Brown  proposed  to  substitute  for  the  committee's  report  the 
following:  "the  legislature  may  provide  for  the  trial  by  jury 
of  issues  in  the  surrogates'  courts."  2  This  was  adopted 
by  a  vote  of  46  to  26,3  but  it  was  immediately  voted  down 
on  Mr.  Ramsey's  and  Judge  Comstock's  motion  to  strike 
out  the  Brown  substitute.4  Judge  Comstock  stated  that 
such  a  measure  would  send  all  issues  of  fact  to  a  jury,  and 
that  the  large  proportion  of  facts  should  be  disposed  of 
without  a  jury.  However,  Mr.  Folger,  not  to  be  downed, 
reported  on  the  day  following  from  the  judiciary  committee 
a  section  which  vested  the  legislature  with  power  to  con- 
fer on  courts  of  record  in  counties  with  a  population  which 
exceeded  400,000,  "  the  powers  and  jurisdiction  of  sur- 
rogates, with  an  authority  to  try  issue  of  fact  by  juries  in 
probate  cases."  6    This  was  adopted.8 

The  conservative  tendency  of  the  convention  was  shown 
in  the  lengthy  contest  over  the  resubmission  to  the  people 

xNew  York  Constitutional  Convention  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol. 
iv,  p.  2634. 
'  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  3724.  '  Ibid.,  p.  3725.  *  Ibid. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  3776.  This  authority  was  not  applied  until  1886, 
sixteen  years  after  it  was  put  in  the  Constitution,  and  then  it  was 
limited  to  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas. 

6  In  1895  this  act  was  amended  and  made  applicable  only  to  the 
Supreme  Court.  The  Code  was  also  amended  by  Chapter  946,  Laws  of 
1895.  I"  1892  renef  was  afforded  New  York  O'ty  without  the  creation 
of  ano'her  surrogate'  court  by  the  creation  of  two  surrogates  in  a 
single  court. 


232        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [232 

of  the  question  whether  judges  should  be  appointed  or 
elected.  The  method  pursued  in  the  earlier  history  of  the 
State  had  been  almost  exclusively  that  of  appointment.  In 
1867,  when  the  convention  asked  the  people  to  vote  anew 
upon  the  question,  twenty  years  had  passed  since  the  adop- 
tion of  the  policy  of  judiciary  election.  The  plan  proposed 
by  the  judiciary  committee  originally  provided  for  the  elec- 
tion of  judges.  However,  the  report  also  contained  a  pro- 
vision which  asked  the  people  to  decide  whether  the  elec- 
tive plan  should  be  continued  or  the  appointive  plan  re- 
stored. The  idea  was  that  if  the  people  ratified  the  con- 
stitution, which  in  its  terms  provided  for  the  election  of 
judges,  the  constitution  as  ratified  would  provide  the  peo- 
ple with  an  opportunity  at  some  time  later  to  change  the 
method  of  judicial  selection.  The  division  of  the  conven- 
tion upon  the  point  is  shown  by  the  vote  on  a  motion  made 
by  Mr.  E.  A.  Brown  to  strike  out  the  section,  which  was 
lost  by  the  vote  of  42  to  43. x  Judge  Comstock's  motion 
limited  the  section  to  judges  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  and 
justices  of  the  Supreme  Court.2  However,  this  was  modi- 
fied by  Mr.  Folger's  motion  which  brought  about  the  sub- 
mission of  two  propositions : 3  the  first,  to  include  the 
judges  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  and  justices  of  the  Supreme 
Court;  the  second,  county  judges,  judges  of  the  superior 
court  of  Buffalo,  the  superior  court  and  court  of  com- 
mon pleas  of  New  York,  and  the  city  court  of  Brooklyn. 

The  new  judiciary  article  went  to  the  people  at  the  No- 
vember election  of  1869  and  was  approved.4  The  statutes, 
passed  early  in  the  session  of  1870,  called  for  an  election 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iv,  pp.  2545-6.  Later  tests  slightly 
increased  the  margin,  but  they  all  showed  that  the  convention  was 
equally  divided  upon  the  question. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  2547.  %Ibid.,  p.  2707. 

4  Tribune  Almanac,  1870,  p.  51.     For,  247,240;  against,  240,442. 


233]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      2^ 

May  17th.  The  judges  elected  at  that  time  entered  upon 
their  duties  the  first  Monday  of  July,  1870,  twenty-three 
years  after  the  Court  of  Appeals  was  established  by  the 
constitution  of  1846. 

In  its  final  form  the  section  on  the  question  of  judicial 
election  or  appointment  provided  for  the  submission  at  the 
general  election  in  1873.  The  result  showed  that  the  people 
after  twenty-five  years  of  experience  in  the  selection  of 
judges  were  unwilling  to  relinquish  their  rights  to  choose 
their  own  judges.  Both  propositions  *  were  defeated  by 
majorities  exceeding  200,000. 

SUFFRAGE 

The  summer  months  of  1867  were  largely  devoted  to 
the  question  of  qualifications  for  the  exercise  of  the  right 
of  suffrage.  The  majority  report  of  the  committee  "  on 
the  right  of  suffrage  and  the  qualifications  to  hold  office  " 
was  presented  on  July  28th  by  Horace  Greeley.  The 
article  on  suffrage  modified  many  important  aspects  of  the 
existing  constitutional  provisions  on  this  subject.  The 
qualifications  of  voters  were  stated  thus : 

Every  man  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  who  shall  have  been 
an  inhabitant  of  this  State  for  one  year  next  preceding  an 
election,  and  for  the  last  thirty  days  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  and  a  resident  of  the  election  district  where  he  may  offer 
his  vote,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  such  election,  in  said  dis- 
trict, and  not  elsewhere,  for  all  officers  elected  by  the  people.* 

The  general  standard  was  residence  in  the  State.  The  re- 
quirement for  a  stated  period  of  residence  in  a  county  was 
omitted.      Idiots,    lunatics,    persons    under    guardianship, 

1  Tribune  Almanac,  1874,  p.  61.  Election  of  judges :  Higher  Courts : 
For,  319,979;  against,  115,337.  Lower  Courts:  For,  319,660;  against, 
110,725. 

•  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  i,  p.  199. 


234        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [234 

felons,  persons  convicted  of  bribery,  persons  who  have 
been  paupers  thirty  days  next  preceding  an  election,  and 
persons  who  offer  or  accept  a  bribe  were  excluded  by  the 
section.1     Further, 

for  the  purpose  of  voting,  no  person  shall  be  deemed  to  have 
gained  or  lost  a  residence  by  reason  of  his  presence  or  absence 
while  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United  States,  nor  while 
engaged  in  the  navigation  of  the  waters  of  this  state,  of  the 
United  States,  or  of  the  high  seas,  nor  while  kept  in  any  alms- 
house or  other  asylum  at  public  expense,  nor  while  confined 
in  any  public  prison.* 

The  provision  required  election  by  ballot,  registration  of 
voters  to  be  complete  at  least  six  days  before  election  and 
uniformity  throughout  the  State.  An  office  holder  had  to 
be  an  elector  and  the  existing  official  oath  was  continued. 
A  minority  report  was  presented  by  Mr.  Cassidy  and  Mr. 
Schumaker.3  They  did  not  submit  any  sections  in  detail, 
but  expressed  their  preference  for  the  existing  provision 
of  the  constitution  on  the  qualifications  of  voters  because 
they  were  well  known  and  had  been  interpreted  judicially.* 
The  year's  residence  requirement  prescribed  by  the 
former  constitution  did  not  occasion  any  objection.  The 
majority  of  the  committee  favored  the  abrogation  of  the 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  i,  p.  199. 

a  Conventional  Documents  (1867),  vol.  i,  no.  15,  pp.  2-3. 

•  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  no.  16,  rp.  1-4. 

'Proceedings  and  Debates,  op.  cit.,  pp.  235-6,  481,  483,  548-9.  Under 
the  discussion  of  disqualifications,  Mr.  Charles  C.  Dwight  proposed  to 
substitute  the  sec' ions  which  were  in  the  present  constitution.  Judge 
Comstock  moved  to  strike  out  the  clause  "  for  all  officers  that  now  are, 
or  hereafter  may  be,  elected  by  the  people."  He  believed  the  expres- 
sion would  lead  to  harm  because  of  its  looseness.  However,  his  motion 
was  lost.  A  motion  made  by  Mr.  Sanford  E.  Church  was  passed  (70 
to  67)  to  the  effect  that  an  elector  should  have  the  right  to  vote  "  upon 
all  questions  which  may  be  submitted  to  the  vote  of  the  people." 


235]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      2^ 

provision  which  required  residence  for  four  months  in  the 
county.1  This  position  was  taken  because  of  the  large 
number  of  laborers  who  left  the  cities  to  work  in  the  coun- 
try and  outside  resorts  during  the  summer  and  who  could 
not  afford  two  residences.2  Also,  under  existing  condi- 
tions clergymen,  who  made  frequent  change  of  location  in 
the  summer,  were  disqualified.  The  provision  which  de- 
clared that  a  person  should  not  be  deemed  while  absent  as 
a  student  to  have  gained  or  lost  residence  for  the  purpose 
of  voting  was  omitted.3  The  clause  was  believed  to  be  un- 
necessary by  Horace  Greeley,  because  the  convention  could 
not  determine  a  man's  residence,  which  is  the  real  test  of 
his  right  to  vote.4  Mr.  Elbridge  G.  Lapham ■  introduced  a 
motion  which  was  later  amended  to  the  effect  that  the  voter 
must  have  been  a  resident  thirty  days  in  the  town  or  ward, 
and  ten  days  in  the  election  district.6 

The  majority  report  required  naturalized  citizens  to  have 
completed  their  naturalization  at  least  thirty  days  before 
election.7  The  minority  report  preferred  the  retention  of 
the  existing  ten-day  rule.8  In  regard  to  persons  disquali- 
fied, the  committee's  plan  proposed  to  include  the  disquali- 
fications already  stated  in  the  constitution,  also  others  fixed 
by  the  statute.9     Registration  was  to  be  compulsory  2nd 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  op.  cit.,  p.  199.  '  Ibid.,  p.  227. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  620 ;  vol.  v,  p.  3570.  This  provision  was  incorporated  in 
the  final  form  of  the  revised  constitution  in  spite  of  the  arguments 
of  such  men  as  Mr.  Charles  C.  Dwight. 

*•  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  pp.  620,  569.  s  Ibid.,  p.  208. 

%Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  3959. 

T  N.  Y.  Convention  Documents,  1867,  vol.  i,  no.  15,  p.  1. 

8  Ibid.,  no.  16,  p.  1. 

'Proceedings,  vol.  i,  p.  208.  "  Persons  judicially  declared  to  be  of 
unsound  mind,  or  incapable  of  managing  their  own  affairs"  was  an 
addition  suggested  by  Mr.  Lapham. 

Ibid.,   p.  560.     "  The   Legislature  may  provide  by  law  that  records 


236        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [236 

must  have  been  completed  six  days  before  election.1  Edu- 
cational qualifications  were  frequently  proposed  in  the  con- 
vention, but  the  committee  refused  to  recommend  such  a 
test.  After  a  long  and  arduous  discussion  over  this  point 
the  original  first  section  with  certain  amendments  was  sub- 
stituted for  the  plan  proposed  by  the  suffrage  committee. 
This  clearly  illustrates  the  conservatism  of  the  convention 
in  its  preservation  of  well-known  qualifications.2 

The  advocates  of  woman  suffrage  endeavored  to  use  the 
convention  of  1867  as  a  means  to  advance  their  cause. 
When  the  legislature  was  considering  the  convention  they 
argued  for  a  right  to  vote  for  delegates.  Although  the 
senate  was  in  favor  of  extending  the  franchise  on  delegates, 
it  did  not  favor  its  use  by  women.3  The  suffrage  committee 

shall  be  kept  ...  by  the  police  authorities  ...  of  all  persons  known  to 
them  to  be  engaged  in  illicit  pursuits  hostile  to  the  community ;  and 
persons  so  engaged  and  .  .  .  recorded,  under  due  provisions  of  law, 
shall  be  excluded  from  registration,"  was  suggested  by  Mr.  Duganne. 

1  N.  Y.  Convention  Documents,  1867,  vol.  i,  no.  15,  p.  3. 

■  Proceedings  and  Debates,  op.  cit.,  p.  544.  "  The  people  of  this  state, 
in  virtue  of  their  constitutional  sovereignty,  have  the  undoubted  right 
to  establish  and  regulate  for  themselves  the  elective  franchise  without 
interference  by  any  other  authority  whatsoever,"  was  proposed  by 
Judge  Comstock  for  a  preamble  to  the  suffrage  section. 

*  Lincoln,  Constitutional  History  of  New  York,  vol.  ii,  p.  312 ;  Lalor, 
Cyclopedia  of  Political  Science,  vol.  iii,  p.  830;  Proceedings  and  De- 
bates, op.  cit.,  pp.  218,  537,  547.  The  conferment  of  suffrage  upon  tax- 
paying  women  was  proposed  by  Mr.  Gideon  Wales.  This  proposition, 
while  it  appears  fair,  was  not  taken  up  by  the  convention.  Mr.  Ezra 
Graves  suggested  that  the  question  of  "  votes  for  women "  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  women  themselves  at  a  special  election.  If  the  majority 
of  the  votes  cast  were  in  the  affirmative,  then  all  women  should  have 
equal  suffrage  with  men.  Horace  Greeley  opposed  this  proposition  on 
the  ground  that  "  it  compelled  women  to  vote  in  order  to  avoid  vot- 
ing." He  favored  the  submission  of  the  question  to  women,  but  stag- 
gered those  in  favor  of  woman  suffrage  by  proposing  that  all  those 
who  did  not  vote  should  be  counted  in  the  negative. 


237]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      2^y 

refused  to  make  a  recommendation  for  elective  franchise 
to  women.    In  part  it  said : 

However  desirable  in  theory,  we  are  satisfied  that  public  sen- 
timent does  not  demand,  and  would  not  sustain,  an  innovation 
so  revolutionary  and  sweeping,  so  openly  at  war  with  a  dis- 
tribution of  duties  and  functions  between  the  sexes  as  vener- 
able and  pervading  as  government  itself  and  involving  trans- 
formation so  radical  in  social  and  domestic  life.1 

George  William  Curtis  championed  the  cause  of  woman 
suffrage  in  the  convention  in  an  eloquent  address,  the  prin- 
cipal one  upon  that  side.2 

When  the  question  of  negro  suffrage  came  before  the 
convention  it  was  not  surprising  that  prejudices  were  still 
rampant,  if  one  considers  the  dynamics  of  the  struggle 
which  had  just  closed  and  of  the  new  struggle  over  Recon- 
struction just  coming  into  its  own.  The  report  of  the 
suffrage  committee  proposed  to  do  away  with  all  discrimi- 
nation based  upon  color.  It  said  in  part :  "  Whites  and 
blacks  are  required  to  render  like  obedience  to  our  laws 
and  are  punished  in  like  manner  for  their  violation.  Whites 
and  blacks  were  indiscriminately  drafted  and  held  to  ser- 
vice to  fill  our  State's  quotas  in  the  War  whereby  the  Re- 
public was  saved  from  disruption." 8  Strong  endeavors 
were  put  forth  by  the  opponents  of  equal  suffrage  to  colored 
men.  However,  they  availed  not.  As  the  constitution  pro- 
posed by  the  convention  of  1867  was  not  accepted  by  the 
people,  the  color  disbarment  continued  as  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  1846  until  the  adoption  of  the  amendments  of  1874, 

1 N.  Y.  Convention  Documents,  op.  cit.,  no.  15,  pp.  6-7',  Proceedings 
<xnd  Debates,  op.  cit.,  pp.  178-9. 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  op.  cit.,  pp.  364-372. 

•  New  York  Convention  Documents,  vol.  i,  no.  15,  p.  4.  See  Pro- 
ceedings and  Debates,  vol.  i,  pp.  236,  253,  255,  312,  313,  349,  528. 


238        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [238 

taking  effect  January  1,  1875.  After  the  adoption  of  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment  on  March  30,  1870/  the  operation 
of  the  discrimination  in  New  York  State  was  nominal. 

THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS 

The  convention  of  1867  was  no  exception  to  the  ten- 
dency to  consider  the  principles  upon  which  the  constitu- 
tion was  founded.  In  consequence  the  Bill  of  Rights  re- 
ceived certain  modifications.  Mr.  Merwin  suggested  an 
amendment,  when  the  jury  section  was  under  consideration, 
to  the  effect  that  "  except  in  justices'  courts  provision  may 
be  made  by  law  for  trial  by  jury  of  less  than  twelve  men." 
This  was  adopted  by  the  convention.2  His  aim,  undoubt- 
edly, was  to  remove  any  question  concerning  the  right  of 
the  legislature  to  increase  the  civil  jurisdiction  of  justices' 
courts.  In  1856  the  Court  of  Appeals  had  decided  3  that  a 
provision  in  the  excise  law  of  1855,  which  gave  courts  of 
special  sessions  jurisdiction  over  persons  charged  with  its 
violation,  was  unconstitutional  on  the  ground  that  they  had 
a  right  to  a  common  law  jury  of  twelve  men.4  Mr.  Mer- 
win's  amendment  was  designed  to  avoid  that  question.6 

1  Art.  xv,  sec.  1 :  "  The  right  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to 
vote  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States  or  by  any 
State  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 
Section  2.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article  by 
appropriate  legislation." 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  v,  p.  3239. 

1  Wynehamer  Case,  13  N.  Y.  378. 

4  Proceedings  and  Debates,  op.  cit.,  p.  3229. 

6  In  1868  it  was  decided  in  Dawson  v.  Horan,  51  Barb.  459,  that  a 
statute  which  increased  the  civil  jurisdiction  of  justices'  courts  was  not 
unconstitutional  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  required  a  jury  of  six 
instead  of  twelve  men.  This  decision  was  followed  and  approved  in 
Knight  v.  Campbell,  62  Barb.  16  (1872). 


239]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      2^g 
THE  LEGISLATURE 

The  conservatism  of  the  convention  was  again  strikingly 
shown  when  the  structure  of  the  legislature  was  discussed. 
It  was  unanimously  proposed  by  the  committee  upon  legis- 
lative organization  to  divide  the  State  into  eight  districts, 
as  established  in  182 1  but  abandoned  in  1846.  However, 
the  geographical  arrangement  of  the  districts  was  new. 
Under  this  plan  the  districts  were  practically  coterminous 
with  the  judicial  districts,  provision  being  made  for  an  ad- 
ditional senator  in  New  York  County.1  Further,  this  plan 
provided  that  one  senator  was  to  be  elected  each  year  for 
four  years.2  The  chairman  of  the  committee,  Mr.  Edwin  A. 
Merritt,  gave  the  opinion  of  the  committee  when  he  said 
that  in  his  belief  the  large  district  plan  would  "  invite  into 
the  legislature  the  ablest  minds  of  the  State  ".*  A  prac- 
tical turn  from  a  political  angle  was  given  the  debate  by 
Mr.  Solomon  C.  Young,4  who  pointed  out  that,  based  on 
the  election  returns  of  1866,  the  first  and  second  districts 
would  send  five  and  four  respectively,  as  representatives 
of  a  56,000  5  Democratic  majority  in  the  two  districts.  On 
the  other  hand,  from  the  remaining  six  districts  the  Re- 
publicans would  elect  twenty-four  in  all,  representing  a 
majority  of  about  92,000. 8  Horace  Greeley,  in  keeping 
with  his  minority  representation,  suggested  fifteen  dis- 
tricts, each  district  to  elect  three  upon  the  cumulative  plan.7 
Among  the  various  other  plans  suggested,  Mr.  Marius 
Schoonmaker  proposed  ten  senatorial  districts  with  four 

1  New  York  Convention  Documents  (1867),  vol.  i,  no.  30,  p.  1. 

*  New  York  County  had  special  arrangements  for  the  fifth. 

*  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  i,  p.  648.  *  Ibid.,  p.  688. 

*  Tribune  Almanac,  1867,  p.  51. 
Ibid.,  1867,  p.  51. 

'  Proceedings  and  Debates,  op.  cit.,  p.  787. 


240        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [240 

senators  from  each.1  The  convention  at  length  substi- 
tuted 2  for  the  eight-senate-district  plan  of  the  committee 
the  single-district  system  then  in  force.  Minor  changes, 
however,  were  made:  four  years  was  made  the  length  of 
office,  two  classes  of  senators  were  made  by  dividing  the 
odd  and  even  numbered  districts,  one  class  was  to  be  elected 
every  two  years.3 

The  same  conservative  plan  was  followed  in  the  com- 
mittee report  when  it  touched  on  the  assembly.  It  sug- 
gested an  increase  of  eleven  in  the  assembly,  making  the 
total  139,  and  abandoning  at  the  same  time  the  method  of 
the  single-district  system.4  There  appeared  to  be  a  united 
opinion  in  favor  of  an  increase  in  the  number  of  assembly- 
men but  the  suggestions  varied  from  an  increase  of  128  to 
168.5  The  committee's  assembly  plan  did  not  encounter 
much  opposition,  except  the  change  from  the  single  dis- 
tricts to  election  by  counties.  The  latter,  however,  was 
sustained  by  the  vote  of  64  to  43. 6  The  convention  adopted 
the  proposition  that  all  electors  should  be  eligible  to  either 
house  of  the  legislature.7  The  legislator's  salary  was  fixed 
at  $1,000  and  mileage.8  Typical  of  Horace  Greeley  was 
the  suggestion  that  the  senators  should  receive  no  compen- 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  op.  cit.,  p.  661. 
*By  a  vote  of  79-35- 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  pp.  3959-61. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  3960-1. 

5  The  latter  was  only  defeated  by  a  small  margin,  52  to  62.  Other 
proposals  were  for  141,  142,  143,  145. 

•  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  876.  The  vote  upon  Mr.  Milton  H.  Merwin's  amend- 
ment which  raised  the  question  whether  members  were  to  be  elected 
from  single  assembly  districts,  or  counties. 

T  Ibid.,  p.  869;  vol.  v,  p.  3959. 

8  The  speaker  of  the  assembly  was  given,  in  addition,  an  emolument 
equal  to  a  member's  salary.  New  York  Convention  Documents,  vol.  i, 
no.  30,  p.  3. 


241]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      2^ 

sation  other  than  the  consciousness  of  honorable  usefulness 
and  the  resulting  gratitude  of  their  fellow  citizens.1 

THE  EXECUTIVE 

Reports  on  the  executive  department  were  received  from 
three  committees.  The  regular  committee  on  the  Governor 
and  lieutenant-governor  made  the  main  report.  The  com- 
mittee on  the  pardoning  power  considered  that  section 
alone,  while  the  committee  on  legislative  powers  and  duties 
returned  a  section  on  the  legislative  power  at  extraordi- 
nary sessions,  in  addition  to  the  regular  section  relating  to 
the  Governor's  action  on  bills.  The  compensation  of  the 
Governor  and  lieutenant-governor  was  to  be  fixed  by  the 
legislature,  though  the  terms  of  office  were  left  unaltered. 
In  his  message  of  1867,2  Governor  Fenton  had  suggested 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  ii,  p.  866.  Among  the  large  number 
of  provisions  suggested  by  the  committee  on  the  powers  and  duties 
of  the  legislature,  which  were  already  in  the  constitution,  the  follow- 
ing were  in  addition  especially  recommended:  Biennial  sessions  of  the 
legislature;  special  sessions,  with  power  to  consider  subjects  specified 
only  by  the  Governor.  No  member  was  to  be  expelled  from  either 
house  without  a  majority  vote  of  its  members,  nor  could  one  be  ex- 
pelled twice  for  the  same  offense.  Further,  there  was  to  be  no  money 
or  property  appropriated  without  a  legislative  act.  The  legislature  was 
authorized  to  create  a  Court  of  Claims.  It  also  was  forbidden  to  grant 
any  extra  compensation  to  a  public  officer  or  contractor  after  the  ser- 
vice had  been  entered  upon.  This  was  passed  after  but  little  discus- 
sion. (Proceedings,  vol.  iv,  p.  2777.)  Railroads  were  forced  to  get 
the  consent  of  the  town  or  city  officials  before  construction  in  cities  or 
in  incorporated  villages,  also  the  consent  of  property-owners  of  at  least 
one-half  the  real  estate  value  upon  the  line  of  the  proposed  railroad. 
All  local  or  private  bills  were  required  to  publish  notices  in  the  State 
paper  at  least  twenty  days  previous  to  the  commencement  of  the  session 
at  which  the  application  was  to  be  made.  Such  bills  had  to  be  intro- 
duced during  the  first  sixty  days  of  the  session.  Also  the  legislature 
was  not  to  pass  local  or  special  laws  in  certain  cases. 

1  Messages  from  the  Governors,  vol.  v,  p.  758.  He  gave  his  reason 
that  the  increase  in  population  with  the  resulting  increase  in   crime, 


242        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [242 

that  a  stringent  limitation  should  be  made  on  the  executive's 
power  to  pardon.  The  committee  interviewed  ex-Gover- 
nors Fish,  Morgan  and  Seymour,  as  well  as  Governor  Fen- 
ton.1  The  advice  of  all  except  ex-Governor  Fish 'was 
against  an  executive  council  and  the  section  on  the  pardon- 
ing power  remained  unaltered. 

A  practice  established  by  the  Governors  and  sanctioned 
by  the  Court  of  Appeals,  whereby  the  Governor  had  an  in- 
definite length  of  time  within  which  to  act  upon  a  bill  after 
the  adjournment  of  the  legislature,  was  discussed  by  the 
convention.  The  leading  suggestion  offered  upon  this 
power  came  from  Mr.  Cornelius  L.  Allen.  Governor  Fen- 
ton,  it  appeared,  had  suggested  that  the  time  for  signing 
bills  be  limited  to  thirty  days  after  adjournment.2  The 
proposition  for  a  ten  days  limitation  suggested  by  Mr. 
Alvord,  was  rejected  but  the  convention  took  no  definite 
stand  on  the  thirty-day  rule.3 

made  the  Governor  unjustly  over-burdened  with  the  consideration  of 
reprieves.  He  suggested  no  constructive  plan.  Horace  Greeley  sug- 
gested a  plan  in  point,  viz.  "  the  surviving  ex-Governors  of  this  State 
still  residing  within  her  limits  shall  constitute  a  council  of  pardons 
and  shall  meet  steadily  at  the  capitol  .  .  .  ."  Proceedings  and  De- 
bates, vol.  ii,  p.  1 183. 

In  its  original  report  the  committee  did  not  incorporate  this,  but 
as  the  report  was  discussed,  the  provision  was  incorporated  in  a 
section  of  the  executive  article  as  reported  by  the  committee  on  re- 
vision.    Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  ii,  p.  1172,  vol.  v,  p.  3962. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  1 1 72. 

•  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  ii,  pp.  1128,  1131.  Mr.  Joshua  M. 
Van  Cott  proposed  as  a  substitute  to  Mr.  Alvord's  amendment  that 
"  No  bill  shall  become  a  law  unless  it  shall  have  been  presented  to 
the  Governor  at  least  ten  days  (Sundays  excepted)  before  the  ad- 
journment ...  or  signed  by  him  before  the  adjournment,  or  unless 
it  shall  have  been  passed  over  his  objection."    This  also  was  lost. 

3  Governor  Fenton's  thirty-day  limit  was  adopted  by  the  commission 
of  1872.  An  amendment  was  submitted  and  ratified  by  the  people 
in  1874. 


243]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867      2^ 

A  radical  change  in  connection  with  the  veto  power  was 
proposed  by  the  committee  on  the  executive.  It  was  sug- 
gested that  the  Governor  might  veto  certain  distinct  and 
separate  portions  of  any  bill.  In  case  of  veto  the  whole  bill 
was  to  be  returned  to  the  legislature  and  if  repassed  by  the 
required  two-thirds  vote,  it  should  become  a  law  as  if  the 
entire  bill  had  not  been  vetoed.  But  if  the  bill  did  not  re- 
ceive the  necessary  vote,  then  the  part  not  vetoed  was  to  be 
engrossed  as  a  separate  bill  and  returned  to  the  Governor. 
Messrs.  Evarts,  Folger  and  Comstock  came  out  strongly 
against  the  plan,  while  Amasa  J.  Parker  sided  with  the  com- 
mittee. Mr.  Folger  objected  that  it  would  make  the  Gov- 
ernor an  affirmative  law-maker  in  that  he  could  accept  a 
portion  of  a  measure.1  Mr.  Parker  maintained  that  it  was 
simply  an  enlargement  of  the  veto  power.2  At  length,  after 
the  consideration  of  a  number  of  amendments,  the  conven- 
tion, on  Mr.  Rumsey's  motion  voted  52  to  30 s  to  retain  the 
existing  veto  power. 

MISCELLANEOUS 

When  the  convention  met  the  canal  situation  was  replete 
with  opportunities  for  reform.  Two  committees  were  ap- 
pointed to  report,  one  on  canals  proper,  the  other  upon 
canals  and  State  finance.  The  financial  provisions,  except 
those  directly  connected  with  the  canals,  underwent  but 
slight  change.4  The  committee  on  canals  proposed  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  superintendent  of  public  works  for  eight 
years  by  the  Governor  and  senate.  He  was  to  have  four  as- 
sistants, appointed  upon  his  recommendation  by  the  Gover- 
nor and  senate.5     Mr.  Schoonmaker,  Mr.  Tappan  and  Mr. 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  op.  cit.,  p.  11 12. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  1 1 17.  *  Ibid.,  p.  1124. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  812.  •  Ibid.,  p.  813. 


244        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [244 

Champlain  presented  a  minority  report.1  They  dissented 
from  the  majority  plan  on  the  ground  that  it  placed  too 
much  power  in  the  hands  of  one  man,  and  proposed  four 
superintendents  instead  of  one,  with  the  canal  divided  into 
four  sections,  the  superintendents  to  be  elected  by  the  peo- 
ple for  eight  years.  The  majority  report  was  approved  by 
the  convention  after  it  had  been  modified  by  the  reduction 
of  the  term  from  eight  years  to  five.2 

In  relation  to  canal  contracts,  Mr.  Erastus  Brooks  pro- 
posed an  important  amendment  which  was  adopted  by  the 
convention.3  He  referred  to  the  provision  in  the  amend- 
ment of  1854  under  which  the  lowest  bids,  by  means  of 
combination  bids,  would  be  fraudulently  rejected  for  in- 
formality. He  proposed  that  no  bid  could  be  rejected  for 
informality  till  an  opportunity  had  been  given  to  the  bidder 
for  its  correction.4  Further,  under  the  Brooks  amendment 
no  specification  could  be  changed  before  or  after  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  contract  without  the  consent  of  the  commis- 
sioners of  the  canal  fund  and  the  superintendent  of  public 
works. 5 

A  large  number  of  amendments  were  proposed  and  re- 
jected, when  the  finance  article  was  under  consideration, 
which  provided  for  the  taxation  of  real  and  personal  prop- 
erty.6    The  requirement  for  a  statement  of  property  was 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  op.  cit.,  pp.  814-16. 
*Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  2056. 

•With  the  proviso  that  the  contract  system  might  be  discontinued 
and  other  methods  of  performing  public  works  adopted. 

*  Proceedings  and  Debates,  op.  cit.,  p.  2091.  5  Ibid. 

•  Among  others,  were  those  by : 

Mr.  George  Rathbun,  "  Taxation  upon  the  real  estate  and  personal 
property  in  this  state  shall  be  equal  on  all  such  property  liable  to  the 
payment  of  taxes."    Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iii,  p.  2248. 

Mr.  Augustus  F.  Allen,  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  1900. 

Mr.  Angus  McDonald,  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  1982. 


245]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867     2^ 

omitted.  However,  the  convention  agreed  to  a  section 
which  in  its  final  form  read  "  real  and  personal  property- 
shall  be  subject  to  a  uniform  rule  of  assessment  and  taxa- 
tion 'V 

Under  the  educational  head  no  important  changes  were 
made.  However,  all  of  the  important  provisions  concern- 
ing education  which  were  adopted  by  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  1894  2  were  thoroughly  discussed  in  the  con- 
vention of  1867.3 

The  tide  of  legislative  corruption,  as  well  as  that  among 

Mr.  Solomon  Townsend,  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  2272. 

Mr.  Erastus  Brooks,  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  1982. 

Mr.  Marcus  Bickford,  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  1982.  Property  both  real 
and  personal  should  be  assessed  at  "  full  cash  value." 

Mr.  John  Stanton  Gould,  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  2339;  He  suggested  a 
commission  of  three  to  investigate  and  prepare  a  system  of  taxation. 

Mr.  George  Van  Campen,  Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  3496;  He  provided  that 
all  property,  both  real  and  personal,  should  be  taxed  "  excepting  such 
charitable  purposes  as  may  be  specially  exempt  by  law." 

Mr.  David  Rumsey,  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  1952. 

Revised  Record  of  Constitutional  Convention  of  1894,  vol.  v,  doc.  62, 
P-  695. 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  v,  p.  3969. 

' "  The  present  constitution  is  silent  upon  the  vital  point  of  the  estab- 
lishment and  maintenance  of  a  system  of  free  common  schools.  It 
may  be  urged  that  no  imagination  can  picture  this  State  refusing  to 
provide  education  for  its  children  and  for  this  reason  the  declaration 
which  your  Committee  have  reported  in  Section  i,  might,  no  doubt 
be  omitted  without  endangering  the  stability  of  our  present  system 
of  education.  But  the  same  reasoning  would  apply  to  many  other 
matters  .  .  .  and  it  is  a  significant  fact  that  within  the  last  half  cen- 
tury of  constitutional  revision  no  other  state  of  the  Union  has  con- 
sidered it  superfluous  or  unwise  to  make  such  an  affirmation  in  its 
fundamental  law.  Your  committee,  therefore,  recommends  the  adop- 
tion of  Section  i,  as  an  applied  direction  to  the  legislature  to  provide 
for  a  system  of  free  common  schools  wherein  all  the  children  of  the 
State  may  be  educated." 

■  The  provision  regarding  the  common  schools  had  once  been  adopted 
by  the  convention  of  1846  but  afterwards  rejected. 


246        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [246 

public  officers,  was  at  its  flood  during  this  period.  The  com- 
mittee on  official  corruption  took  extensive  testimony  on 
the  alleged  bribery  of  members  of  the  legislature,  on  which 
they  based  the  report.1  Bribery  of  public  officers  was  de- 
fined and  provision  made  for  its  punishment  by  imprison- 
ment for  not  less  than  three  years.2  Satisfactory  proof  of 
innocence  was  to  be  the  only  avenue  leading  to  a  pardon  or 
a  commuted  sentence  when  once  convicted  of  bribery.  A 
radical  change  in  the  law  was  proposed  by  the  committee 
under  which  the  briber,  if  the  bribe  was  accepted,  was  not 
to  be  punished.  The  sole  person  guilty  of  a  criminal  of- 
fense was  to  be  the  bribee.  An  attempt  at  bribery  was  like- 
wise made  a  felony,  punishable  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
offense  of  receiving  a  bribe  with  this  difference,  that  the 
briber  was  to  be  the  person  guilty  of  criminal  offense.3 
The  committee  believed  that  the  only  way  to  overcome  the 
tendency  toward  bribery  was  to  make  one  of  the  parties  to 
the  crime  immune.  They  believed  the  briber  was  the  less 
guilty  of  the  two.  The  article  as  proposed  by  the  conven- 
tion of  1867  was  recommended  practically  in  toto  by  the 
commission  of  1872  and  the  people  adopted  it  in  1874.4 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  Hi,  pp.  2276-80;  Convention  Docu- 
ments, vol.  v,  No.  150.     Testimony  and  Report,  pp.  1-51. 

*  Convention  Documents,,  op.  cit.,  p.  2. 

8  Ibid.,  sec.  2.  "  The  person  or  persons  giving  such  bribe,  if  the  same 
shall  be  accepted,  shall  not  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  penal  offense,  nor 
liable  to  civil  or  criminal  prosecution  therefor.  But  any  person 
who  offers  or  promises  such  bribe  if  the  same  shall  be  rejected  by 
the  official  to  whom  it  is  tendered,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  an 
attempt  to  bribe,  which  is  hereby  declared  to  be  a  felony,  and  on 
conviction  shall  receive  the  same  measure  of  punishment  as  is  pro- 
vided in  this  article  for  a  person  convicted  of  receiving  a  bribe." 

Sec.  3.  "A  person  charged  with  receiving  a  bribe,  or  with  offering 
or  promising  a  bribe  that  is  rejected,  may  be  compelled  to  testify 
against  himself  in  any  civil  or  criminal  prosecution  therefor,  .  .  .  and 
the  lapse  of  time  shall  not  be  a  bar  to  any  prosecution  against  him." 

*  Journal  of  the  Constitutional  Commission,  1872-3,  pp.  50,  474. 


247]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867     2^j 

Under  the  direction  of  Erastus  Brooks,  state  charities 
received  exhaustive  attention  in  the  convention.1  The 
efforts  spent  in  that  direction  bore  fruit  in  the  convention 
of  1894.2  The  proposal  of  the  committee  was  to  make  the 
State  board  of  charities  permanent  by  constitutional  provi- 
sion. The  majority  in  the  convention  argued  that  the  State 
board  of  charities,  only  recently  created,  was  an  experi- 
ment and  that  the  legislature  should  be  given  the  oppor- 
tunity to  reflect  on  it.  This  reflection  was  continued  for 
twenty-seven  years  up  to  the  convention  of  1894.3 

Under  the  statute  which  called  the  convention,  it  was  re- 
quired to  meet  on  the  first  Tuesday  of  June  (4th).  The 
constitution  which  was  to  result  from  its  deliberation  was 
to  be  submitted  on  November  5,  1867,  at  the  general  elec- 
tion. The  convention  worked  steadily  through  the  sum- 
mer. When  in  the  latter  part  of  September  it  became  evi- 
dent that  the  convention  would  not  be  able  to  complete  its 
work  in  time  for  the  election  set,  George  William  Curtis 
proposed  that  the  convention  should  adjourn  until  Novem- 
ber 1 2th.4  This  proposition  was  debated  at  great  length. 
Mr.  Smith  M.  Weed  favored  adjournment  until  the  first 
Tuesday  of  May,  1868,*  maintaining  that  this  would  be 
necessary  in  order  to  allow  the  legislature  time  to  pass  an 
enabling  act.  Samuel  J.  Tilden  cast  doubt  on  the  legality 
of  a  submission  not  under  the  statute.8  Mr.  Joshua  M. 
Van  Cott  believed  that  the  power  of  the  convention  came 
from  the  people  direct  and  not  from  the  legislature,7  which, 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  v,  p.  3969. 

■  Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  2710-2793 ;  Report,  vol.  ii,  pp.  1309-10. 

•  Revised  Record  Const.  Conv.,  1894,  vol.  ii,  pp.  948-949. 
4  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iii,  p.  1955. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  1957.  •  Ibid.,  p.  i960. 
T  Ibid.,  p.  1 961. 


248        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [248 

therefore,  had  no  power  to  limit  the  time  of  the  conven- 
tion. The  resolution  advanced  by  Mr.  Curtis  was  passed 
by  a  vote  of  78  to  40. 1 

The  committee  on  submission  recommended  on  Feb- 
ruary 21,  1868,  that  the  constitution  be  submitted  in  two 
parts,  viz. :  first,  "  The  constitution,  except  the  article  on 
the  judiciary  " ;  second,  "  The  article  on  the  judiciary  ".2 
It  also  suggested  the  separate  submission  of  the  question 
whether  the  portion  of  the  constitution  of  1846  which  im- 
posed a  property  qualification  on  colored  voters  should  be 
retained.3  The  committee  further  believed  that  the  conven- 
tion had  the  power  to  fix  the  time  for  the  submission  of  the 
constitution.4  Two  propositions,  one  to  submit  the  consti- 
tution at  a  special  election  in  June,5  the  other  to  submit  it 
to  the  legislature,  were  defeated.6  By  a  vote  of  61  to  31,  the 
convention  adopted  the  committee's  recommendation  to 
submit  the  constitution  at  the  November  election  of  1868.7 
Several  miscellaneous  propositions  for  separate  submission 
were  defeated.  The  convention  accepted  the  constitution 
by  a  vote  of  84  to  31  on  February  28,  1868. 

RESUME 

Mr.  Folger,  as  chairman  of  a  select  committee  of  ten, 
prepared  an  address  to  the  people  which  may  be  cited  as  an 
excellent  summary  of  the  convention's  work.  The  address 
was  made  the  more  valuable  by  the  many  alterations,  cor- 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  iii,  p.  1969. 

'  Convention  Documents,  1868,  vol.  v,  no.  180,  p.  1. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  2. 

*  Convention  Documents,  1868-69,  vol.  v,  no.  180,  p.  3.  "  Resolved : 
that  this  Convention  has  the  power,  and  it  is  its  duty,  to  fix  the  time 
for  the  submission  of  the  Constitution." 

6  Williams,  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  v,  pp.  3896,  3906. 

*  Ferry,  ibid.,  p.  3906.  7  Ibid.,  p.  3907. 


249]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867     2^g 

rections  and  criticisms  through  which  it  passed  in  com- 
mittee of  the  whole.1 

The  delegates  of  the  people,  in  Convention  assembled  to  re- 
vise and  amend  the  constitution  of  the  State,  having  ended 
their  labors,  present  to  the  people  for  their  adoption  an 
amended  constitution  of  fourteen  articles,  to  be  considered 
together. 

They  have  presented  for  separate  consideration,2  a  para- 
graph relative  to  suffrage  for  colored  persons.  The  rejection 
of  this  by  the  people  will  not  effect  the  harmony  of  the 
whole  instrument,  and  if  adopted,  it  will  become  a  part  of  the 
constitution  without  and  derangement  of  that  ti  which  it  is 
attached.  In  these  fourteen  articles,  we  have  provided  for 
progress  in  agriculture,  by  requiring  general  laws  giving  the 
right  of  draining  across  adjoining  lands. 

We  have  provided  new  and  stringent  provisions  to  stop 
bribery  and  improper  influence  at  elections,  and  have  required 
from  each  elector,  upon  challenge,  to  make  oath  that  he  is  free 
from  corrupt  motive  and  practice,  and  we  have  provided  in 
explicit  terms  for  a  registry  of  voters  by  laws  to  be  uniform 
in  all  cities. 

We  have  reorganized  the  Legislature,  so  that  the  terms  of 
office  of  all  the  Senators  shall  not  expire  at  the  same  time, 
thereby  securing  in  that  body  a  new  element  of  experience 
and  stability,  and  to  the  end  of  greater  capacity  in  the  repre- 
sentative, have  restored  the  plan  of  electing  members  of  As- 
sembly by  counties. 

We  have  increased  the  compensation  of  the  members  of  the 
Legislature,  as  a  means  to  their  integrity,  and  increased  their 
number  to  one  hundred  and  thirty-nine  as  a  step  toward  the 
prevention  of  controlling  combinations. 

We  have,  to  stop  abuses  in  the  disposition  of  public  money 
by  law,  placed   important   restrictions  upon   the  exercise   of 

1  As  quoted  here  the  address  is  in  its  final  form. 
1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  v,  p.  9916. 


250        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [250 

legislative  powers ;  have  confined  it  more  to  general  legislation 
by  positive  inhibition  upon  the  passage  of  special  laws,  and 
upon  matters  of  local  moment  have  provided  for  large  power 
of  legislation  in  boards  of  supervisors. 

We  have  strengthened  the  veto  power  of  the  Governor  by 
requiring  a  larger  legislative  vote  to  pass  a  bill  in  spite  of  his 
objections. 

We  have  changed  the  time  of  the  election  of  the  Secretary 
of  State,  Comptroller,  Attorney-General  and  Treasurer,  so  that 
they  shall  be  chosen  at  the  same  time  with  the  Governor. 

We  have  changed  the  system  of  the  care  and  management 
of  the  canals  by  abolishing  the  offices  of  canal  commissioners, 
and  have  discontinued  certain  boards  and  officers  having  direc- 
tion of  the  canals,  and  have  provided  for  an  individual  and 
substantial  and  single  responsibility  for  official  action  in  regard 
thereto,  by  creating  one  head  to  the  canal  system,  who  is  to 
be  appointed  by  the  Governor  and  Senate  for  five  years,  with 
large  and  important  powers,  and  with  the  sole  control  of  the 
canals,  and  with  the  sole  and  immediate  responsibility  for  its 
exercise. 

We  have  set  guards  against  the  making  in  wicked  ways  and 
for  evil  purposes,  of  contracts  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
canals. 

We  have  created  a  court  of  claims  for  the  adjudication  of 
all  demands  against  the  State,  and  taken  away  all  the  power 
of  the  Legislature  to  pass  laws  in  relation  to  claims,  thereby 
removing  one  prolific  cause  of  frequent  interested  and  some- 
times improvident  legislation;  we  have  created  a  solicitor  in 
this  court  to  care  for  the  interest  of  the  State  in  the  matters 
which  come  into  this  court;  and  we  have  abolished  the  office 
of  canal  appraiser. 

We  have  materially  changed  the  judicial  system;  we  have 
made  a  permanent  and  efficient  court  of  last  resort  of  seven 
judges,  to  be  elected  for  fourteen  years,  no  elector  to  vote  for 
more  than  five  candidates ;  for  a  commission  to  dispose  of  the 
causes  accumulated  in  the  present  Court  of  Appeals,  thus  re- 
lieving the  suitors  from  the  delay  which  is  a  denial  of  justice ; 


251]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867     ^ 

for  such  an  arrangement  of  the  existing  Supreme  Court,  as 
will  restrict  the  number  of  general  terms,  thus  securing  less 
diversity  of  decision,  and  have  extended  the  term  of  office  of 
the  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court;  we  have  made  courts,  by 
the  Constitution,  of  the  Superior  Court  of  the  City  of  New 
York,  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  thereof,  the  Superior  Court 
of  Buffalo,  and  the  city  court  of  Brooklyn,  continuing  in  office 
the  present  judges  thereof,  and  lengthening  the  term  of  their 
successors  to  fourteen  years,  and  increased  the  number  of 
judges  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  New  York. 

We  have  much  enlarged  the  jurisdiction  of  the  county  court 
and  extended  the  terms  of  office  of  the  County  Judge. 

We  have  provided  that  no  judge  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  or 
Superior  Court  shall  sit  in  review  of  his  decision,  and  for- 
bidden certain  judges  from  practising  in  courts  and  acting  as 
referee. 

We  have  provided  for  the  relief  of  Surrogates'  Courts  in 
the  counties  of  largest  population ;  and  generally  have  increased 
the  working  power  of  the  courts,  and  by  the  extended  term 
of  office  have  made  more  independent  and  permanent  and  use- 
ful the  bench  of  the  State. 

We  have  also  provided  that,  in  1873,  it  shall  be  submitted 
to  the  people  whether  the  judges  of  the  higher  courts  of  record 
shall  be  appointed  by  the  Governor,  rather  than  elected  by  the 
people. 

We  have  made  new  provisions  in  regard  to  the  organization 
and  government  of  cities,  by  increasing  the  power  and  respon- 
sibility of  the  Mayor,  by  preventing  members  of  the  common 
council  from  holding  any  other  office,  and  any  city  officer  from 
being  a  member  of  the  Legislature ;  by  providing  for  the  organ- 
ization of  government  of  cities  by  general  laws,  and  forbidding 
special  acts  for  such  purposes,  we  have  restrained  the  power 
of  the  common  council  of  any  city  to  dispose  of  public  money. 

We  have  continued  the  constitutional  provision  as  to  the 
funds  for  the  purposes  of  education,  making  them  inviolate; 
and  have  also  made  inviolate  the  fund  arising  from  the  sale 
of  the  land  donated  to  the  State  by  the  general  government, 


252        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [252 

and  the  fund  known  as  the  Cornell  University  fund,  and  have 
commanded  legislative  provision  for  free  instruction  in  the 
common  schools  of  all  between  seven  and  twenty  years  of  age. 

We  have  materially  changed  the  system  of  control  of  the 
State's  prisons. 

We  have  abolished  the  offices  of  inspectors  thereof,  and  have 
made  instead  an  unpaid  board  of  five  persons  to  be  appointed 
by  the  Governor  and  Senate  for  ten  years ;  which  board  shall 
appoint  the  warden  of  each  prison,  who,  in  turn,  shall  appoint 
his  subordinates. 

We  have  provided  for  an  annual  enrollment  of  the  militia; 
for  its  division  into  an  active  and  reserve  force;  for  the  for- 
mation of  a  national  guard,  not  to  exceed  in  time  of  peace 
thirty  thousand  men;  for  the  election  of  brigadier-generals  by 
field  officers  of  brigades,  for  the  expiration  of  all  commissions 
in  ten  years  from  date,  and  for  the  organization  of  a  reserve 
corps  of  officers  to  be  composed  by  those  retired  at  the  end  of 
ten  years. 

The  financial  article  of  the  constitution  of  1848,  with  its 
salutary  provisions  of  tried  goodness,  is  in  the  main  preserved 
but  we  have  simplified  its  letter;  and,  led  by  its  careful  spirit, 
have  provided  that  the  State  shall  not  in  any  way,  save  by 
bequest,  own  stock  or  shares  in  any  corporation,  or  invest  in 
the  same. 

We  have  authorized  the  extension  of  the  time  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  '  bounty  debt ',  so  as  to  lessen  the  annual  tax 
therefor,  and  to  spread  its  burdens  over  a  large  space. 

We  have  made  provision  for  an  earlier  application  of  the 
revenues  of  the  canals  to  their  improvement. 

We  have  required  that  there  shall  be  a  uniform  and  equal 
rule  of  assessment  and  taxation  of  real  and  personal  estate. 

Recognizing  the  strength  of  the  public  feeling,  and  deeply 
impressed  thereby,  we  have  made  stringent  provisions  as  to 
corruption  in  office,  and  as  to  bribery  of  officials;  made  prac- 
ticable the  trial  and  conviction  of  offenders;  have  put  upon 
district  attorneys  the  duty  of  prosecuting,  under  penalty  for 
negligence,  and  have  provided  for  the  payment  by  the  State 


253]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867     2^ 

of  the  expenses  of  prosecutors  against  a  State  or  legislative 
official  for  bribery  in  office. 

We  have  also  enacted  an  oath  for  public  officers  as  a  guard 
against  bribery  at  election. 

These  fourteen  articles  embrace  all  the  provisions  agreed 
upon  in  the  Convention,  and  compose  an  entire  constitution  for 
the  State.  The  discussion  and  conclusions  of  the  Convention 
have  not  resulted  in  many  or  great  changes  in  the  theory  of  a 
State  government,  but  have  come  principally  to  the  amending 
of  modes,  the  alteration  of  details,  the  putting  stops  upon 
abuses,  and  the  well  working  of  the  whole  by  easing  friction 
in  the  parts. 

The  Convention  has  conceived  that  as  its  amendments  are 
numerous,  affecting  every  article  of  the  present  Constitution, 
often  dependent  one  upon  the  other,  and  together  making  a 
constitution,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Convention,  complete  and 
harmonious,  it  is  not  judicious  or  practicable  to  take  part  from 
the  others  to  be  passed  upon  by  the  people  separately. 

After  the  proposed  constitution  had  gone  through 
its  final  reading,  the  constitution  was  signed  by  the 
delegates  present  and  was  delivered  by  President  Wheeler 
to  the  Hon.  Homer  A.  Nelson,  Secretary  of  State.  Presi- 
dent Wheeler  in  a  brief  but  dignified  address,  the  spirit  of 
which  was  the  hope  "  that  our  labors  have  not  been  alto- 
gether fruitless  'V  adjourned  the  convention  sine  die.2 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  v,  p.  3950. 

•  This  convention  sat  nine  months,  including  adjournments.  The 
convention  of  1776-7  sat  a  short  time,  only  six  weeks  being  de- 
voted to  the  actual  work  of  making  a  constitution.  The  present 
convention  sat  close  to  four,  times  as  long  as  the  convention  of 
1821,  and  was  twice  as  long  as  that  of  1846.  The  convention  of  1894 
sat  four  months  and  three  weeks. 


254        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [254 

SUBMISSION 

An  attempt  was  made  by  the  assembly  of  1868  to  pass  a 
bill  for  the  submission  of  the  constitution  at  the  November 
election  for  that  year.  This  was  blocked  in  the  senate. 
However,  in  May  the  legislature  passed  an  act  which  rati- 
fied the  proceedings  of  the  convention  held  beyond  the  time 
fixed  for  the  submission  of  its  acts  to  the  people.1  The 
weight  of  opinion  seems  to  hold  that  this  ratification  was 
unnecessary.  Mr.  Charles  Z.  Lincoln  states :  "  I  think  it  is 
very  clear  that  the  legislature  had  no  power  to  limit  the 
deliberations  of  a  constitutional  convention ;  such  a  conven- 
tion may  make  or  unmake  the  legislature  itself."  2 

Mr.  Folger,  continuing  his  senatorial  activity  in  behalf 
of  the  convention's  plan  of  submission,  introduced  a  bill, 
early  in  1869,  to  submit  the  proposed  constitution  at  a 
special  election  on  Tuesday,  April  4,  1869.  He  incorpor- 
ated the  convention's  plan  for  the  submission  of  the  con- 
stitution as  a  whole  and  the  question  of  property  qualifica- 
tions for  colored  voters.  Mr.  Murphy  of  the  senate  judic- 
iary committee,  to  which  the  bill  had  been  referred,  made 
a  minority  report  and  accompanied  it  with  a  bill  which 
proposed  the  submission  at  the  November  election  in  1869, 
also,  that  the  article  on  the  judiciary  should  be  submitted 
separately.  Before  the  bill  became  a  law  it  was  amended 
so  as  to  provide  for  the  submission  of  the  constitution  in 
four  parts :  first,  the  complete  constitution  with  the  judiciary 
article ;  second,  the  article  on  the  judiciary ;  third,  the  pro- 

1  Laws  of  1868,  ch.  538,  May  2,  1868. 

'  Lincoln,  Constitutional  History  of  New  York,  vol.  ii,  p.  414.  The 
legislature  of  1894  used  a  potent  means  to  limit  the  length  of  the 
convention.  It  stated  a  definite  period  for  which  compensation  would 
be  due  to  members  of  the  convention.  This  did  not  stop  the  con- 
vention of  1894  from  continuing  its  labors  over  the  time  set. 


255]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867     255 

vision  relating  to  taxes;  and  lastly,  the  qualifications  for 
colored  voters.1 

The  question  naturally  arises,  what  right  did  the  legis- 
lature have  to  control  the  method  of  constitutional  submis- 
sion ?  While  it  is  not  within  our  province  to  discuss  a  ques- 
tion of  constitutional  ethics,  it  appeals  to  the  author  as  an- 
other instance  of  the  usurpation  of  power  by  the  legisla- 
ture. If,  as  appears  clear,  in  the  case  of  a  constitutional 
convention,  the  legislature  has  no  previous  power  to  deter- 
mine the  method  of  a  constitution's  submission  in  part  or 
whole,  why  should  it  have  that  power  after  the  constitution 
had  been  formed?  The  New  York  State  constitution  pro- 
vides for  but  two  ways  of  constitutional  amendment.2 
First,  the  legislature  is  authorized  to  submit  amendments, 
which  require  previous  action  by  two  legislatures.  A  con- 
stitutional convention,  independent  of  the  legislature,  is  the 
second  mode  of  amendment.  Where  the  latter  mode  of 
procedure  has  been  decided  upon  by  the  people,  why  should 
the  legislature  have  power  to  step  in  and  dissect  the  work 
of  the  convention  on  the  question  of  submission?  If  such 
a  method  is  good  law,  wherein  have  the  people  power  to 
control  the  legislature  ?  8 

1  The  recommendation  of  the  convention  for  a  separate  submission 
was  ignored  by  the  legislature.  This  attitude  on  the  part  of  the 
legislature  might  have  been  anticipated  from  the  Act  of  May  2, 
1868  (Chap.  538)  "  Nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  held  or  con- 
strued to  affirm  or  ratify  any  form  or  mode  of  submission  to  the 
people  of  the  Constitution  by  said   Convention  proposed." 

1  New  York  Constitution,  art.  xiv,  sees.  1-3. 

3  The  New  York  State  constitution  as  acted  upon  by  the  convention 
of  1894  says :  "Any  proposed  constitution  or  constitutional  amendment 
which  shall  have  been  adopted  by  such  convention,  shall  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  vote  of  the  electors  of  the  State  at  the  time  and  in  the 
manner  provided  by  such  convention,  at  an  election  which  shall  be 
held  not  less  than  six  weeks  after  the  adjournment  of  such  con- 
vention."    Article  xiv,  sec.  2. 


256        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [2$6 

As  prescribed  by  statute,  the  people  voted  upon  the 
constitution  at  the  regular  election  November  2,  1869. 
The  judiciary  article  was  approved  by  a  vote  of  247,240  to 
240,442, *  but  the  people  rejected  the  constitution  by  a  vote 
of  223,935  to  290,456.2  The  constitutional  amendment 
providing  for  equal  assessment  and  taxation  was  lost  by 
a  majority  of  89,448^  as  was  equal  negro  suffrage  by  a 
vote  of  249,802  to  282,403. 4  There  can  be  no  question  of 
the  chagrin  to  many  members  of  the  convention  due  to  the 
large  failure  of  their  work.  Still  the  fact  that  many  of  the 
most  important  reforms  proposed  by  the  convention  were 
recommended  by  the  commission  of  1872  must  have  been  a 
solace.  The  fact  that  the  people  in  1874  and  1876  chose 
many  of  the  reforms  suggested  by  the  convention  of  1867 
gives  evidence  that  their  arrows  were  not  aimed  at  the  con- 
stitution as  a  whole. 

POLITICAL  ASPECTS  OF  THE   CONVENTION 

Politically,  the  constitutional  convention  and  the  pro- 
posed constitution  exerted  but  slight  influence  upon  condi- 
tions, in  comparison  with  the  political  power  brought  to 
bear  upon  the  convention.  Its  members  were  more  "sinned 
against  than  sinning  ".  The  convention  was  theoretically 
a  constitutional  non-political  body.  Practically,  however, 
it  was  a  most  decided  political  organization.  This  could 
hardly  be  otherwise  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  As  we  have 
stated  before,  the  political  complexion  of  the  convention 

1  Tribune  Almanac,  1870,  p.  51.  ■  Ibid. 

•  Ibid.     For,  183,812;  against,  273,260. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  53.  In  i860  the  same  proposition  received  the  following 
vote:  total  vote,  535,487;  for  negro  suffrage,  197,503,  against  negro 
suffrage,  337,984.  Tn  1846  the  vote  on  the  same  question  was:  total 
vote,  309,742 ;  for  negro  suffrage,  85,406,  against  negro  suffrage,  224,336. 
Annual  Cyc,  1869,  p.  490. 


257]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867     2$7 

was  Republican,  ninety-seven  of  the  one  hundred-sixty 
delegates  being  Republican.  However,  there  was  a  silent 
minority,  which  to  the  opposing  leaders  meant  danger. 
Mr.  San  ford  E.  Church  was  the  Democratic  leader  most 
feared.  In  speaking  upon  the  question  of  submission,  Mr. 
M.  I.  Townsend  said  of  him:  "  It  is  equally  true  that  if 
matters  shall  stand  as  they  now  do,  a  breath  from  the  great 
war-horse  of  the  Democratic  party,  my  friend  from  Or- 
leans .  .  .  might  be  sufficient  to  array  his  whole  party 
against  the  other  articles  ■  whether  the  submission  be  in 
June  or  in  the  fall."    Mr.  Townsend  then  continues: 

The  other  articles  are  doomed  to  defeat,  hopelessly  doomed. 
What  do  our  Democratic  friends  mean  here?  What  signifies 
this  silence  ? 2  I  do  not  hesitate  to  look  at  political  distinctions ; 
I  want  that  we,  as  Republicans,  should  not  be  beguiled  and  led 
into  traps  in  regard  to  this  matter.  If  our  friends  upon  the 
Democratic  side  of  the  house  want  this  Constitution  adopted, 
they  can  say  so;  and  when  they  say  so,  all  question  of  con- 
flict is  past.3 

r  All  besides  the  judiciary  article. 

1  New  York  Tribune,  August  7,  1867.  Mr.  Greeley  warned  the  Re- 
publican on  this  point.  "  It  is  no  credit  to  the  Republican  majority 
that  the  minority  have  virtually  ruled  the  Convention  thus  far.  [By 
their  absence.]     Shall  it  be  so  to  the  end? 

3  Albany  Argus,  Feb.  27,  1868,  after  summing  up  the  work  of 
the  Convention  to  date  rather  disagreed  with  the  above :  "  The 
vast  scheme  of  centralization  and  usurpation  cannot  be  successful, 
if  the  people  in  the  coming  election  wrest  the  power  from  the 
hands  of  the  party  who  expect  to  profit  by  it.  Place  the  Democracy 
in  power  by  your  votes,  and  these  conspirators  will  hasten  to  undo 
their  work.  They  will  build  up  no  lawless  patronage,  no  vast  schemes 
of  expenditure  .  .  .  pile  up  no  arbitrary  powers  in  the  hands  of  cen- 
tral officials  or  State  boards.  They  will  hasten  to  undo  their  work, 
will  rather  abandon  it  and  leave  it  a  monument  of  their  baffled 
ambition,  than  permit  it  to  exist  as  a  means  of  strength  to  their 
adversaries."  Under  the  title  "A  Copperhead  Hiss,"  Harper's  Weekly 
derived  much   amusement   from   the   fury  of  the  Albany  Argus,   the 


258        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [258 

A  number  of  the  Republican  leaders  of  the  convention 
recognized  the  unpopularity  of  the  proposed  constitution.1 
Mr.  Hale,  in  his  argument  against  a  separate  submission, 
said: 

Suppose  the  Democratic  party  should  make  an  issue  upon  any 
part  of  this  Constitution  and  should  wish  to  have  the  prestige 
of  victory  in  June  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  them  in  Novem- 
ber, are  they  tempted  by  having  the  election  in  June  to  make 
that  effort  without  regard  to  their  opinion  of  the  merits  of 
this  Constitution,  for  the  sake  of  the  effect  which  the  prestige 
of  victory  would  give  them  in  November? 

Mr.  Verplanck,  in  speaking  of  the  action  of  the  convention 
giving  the  unrestricted  right  to  vote  to  all  the  male  inhabi- 
tants of  the  State  over  twenty-one  years  old,  and  the  re- 
sult of  the  Ohio  election  2  on  the  subject  of  negro  suffrage, 
said,  "  These  two  facts  have  greatly  contributed  to  make 
this  convention  unpopular  with  the  people  of  the  State."  3 
Judge  Comstock,  of  Syracuse,  one  of  the  minority  leaders 
who  replied  for  the  minority,  would  not  commit  himself. 
He  answered  that  it  was  "  the  duty  of  all  of  us,  although 

chief  Copperhead  organ  in  this  State,  over  the  recess  of  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention.  "  It  has  been  the  fond  hope  of  the  amiable 
Argus  from  the  moment  that  submission  of  the  new  Constitution  at 
the  election  this  autumn  .became  evidently  impossible,  that  it  would  go 
over  until  next  autumn.  When  the  Argus  contemplates  a  separate 
submission  of  the  instrument  to  the  calm  and  unbiased  popular  judg- 
ment, it  froths  in  the  most  comical  manner."  [Froth.]  "  Shameful 
and  impotent  conclusion.  These  men  think  that  they  can  escape  the 
people  thus.  They  rely  upon  this  juggle  to  cheat  the  people  out  of 
power,  and  to  impose  upon  future  generations  a  costly,  arbitrary,  cen- 
tralized government  against  their  will,  without  their  consent,  by  the 
sleight  of  hand  of  a  mountebank  trick."  Harper's  Weekly,  Oct.  12, 
1867,  p.  642. 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  v,  p.  3903. 

-Ibid.,  vol.  v,  p.  3904.  *Ibid. 


259]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867     2$g 

we  have  sat  here  together  in  framing  the  constitution,  to 
examine  it  carefully,  as  a  whole,  and  say  whether  it  ought 
to  command  our  condemnation  or  approval. "  ' 

The  majority  party  early  in  the  course  of  the  convention 
found  another  powerful  foe  within  its  own  ranks.  Horace 
Greeley,  who  was  a  member  of  the  convention,  soon  grew 
restless  under  the  routine.  The  frequent  lack  of  quorum 
and  general  irregular  attendance  annoyed  him.  He  vigor- 
ously opposed  the  Friday  to  Tuesday  adjournment.2  It  was 
his  belief  that  the  convention  should  work  hard  and  finish 
the  revision  at  an  early  date.  He  spoke  often,  but  presently 
lost  the  power  to  influence  his  fellows.  Then  he  turned  to 
the  Tribune  as  an  outlet  for  his  views  and  feelings.  The 
Tribune  with  its  constant  biting  remarks  led  the  sentiment 
of  the  lesser  Republican  papers,  which  harmed  the  work 
of  the  convention  to  an  incalculable  degree.3 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  op.  cit.,  p.  3905.  With  the  exception  of 
the  Tribune  and  the  Dispatch,  all  the  daily  and  weekly  newspapers 
published  in  New  York  City  were  virtually  arrayed  against  the 
Constitution. 

'  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  i,  p.  164;  vol.  iii,  pp.  1958-9.  Greeley 
made  a  practice  of  reporting  the  names  of  the  absentees  in  the 
Tribune.  We  find  the  following  characteristic  note  at  the  foot  of  his 
convention  report  for  September  7,  1867:  "A  party  of  ten  or  twelve 
delegates,  headed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Convention,  Major  Caldwell, 
last  night  started  for  Boston  for  a  few  days  of  Mackerel  fishing." 

•  The  following  extracts  may  be  taken  as  typical  of  the  almost  con- 
stant growlings  of  the  Tribune  at  the  sloth  of  the  convention,  as  well 
as  the  necessity  of  the  people  to  constantly  watch  its  proceedings  and 
to  inform  the  convention  of  the  public  sentiment  upon  questions  of 
weight.  In  the  Tribune,  August  1,  1867,  Greeley  eagerly  prepared  the 
minds  of  the  people  for  an  unsatisfactory  settlement  of  the  judiciary 
question:  "If  we  are  to  be  believe  the  reports  from  the  Constitutional 
Convention  .  .  .  there  is  but  little  hope  for  a  thorough  reform  of  our 
judicial  system."  "We  again  ask  the  Citizen's  Association  why  it 
remains  quiescent  at  this  critical  time.  It  has  in  a  languid  way  as- 
serted the  necessity  of  change;  but  it  has  not  collected  and  published 


26o        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [26o 

When  the  convention  adjourned  on  September  24th  until 
November  12th,  the  Democrats  at  once  were  strident  in 
their  accusations.    The  World  could  not  conceal  its  delight.1 

the  facts  which  would  convince  the  mass  of  honest  citizens  of  that 
necessity."  On  August  7th  {Tribune,  August  7,  1867),  in  speak- 
ing of  the  eight  weeks  of  actual  session  from  June  4th.  Greeley  says: 
"  Of  the  other  eight,  a  considerable  portion  of  each  have  been  lost 
through  adjournments  from  Friday  to  the  succeeding  Monday.  At 
the  hour  appointed  for  assembling,  no  quorum  appears ;  so  that  day 
is  wasted  in  awaiting  or  more  actively  seeking  to  obtain  one.  If  the 
Convention  declines  to  adjourn  over  when  asked,  a  large  portion  of 
the  members  take  French  leave,  and  return  when  convenient  .  .  . 
Members  gravely  rise  in  their  places  and  ask  that  a  decision  on  the 
pending  question  be  postponed  because  A,  B,  and  C  are  absent,  who 
desire  to  speak  or  vote  thereon.  .  . 

What  right  have  these  or  have  the  incumbents  of  other  offices 
requiring  frequent  personal  attendance  at  points  remote  from  Albany 
to  accept  nominations  to  seats  in  the  Convention?  Why  not  frankly 
say,  I  have  duties  or  tastes  which  are  incompatible  with  faithful  ser- 
vice as  delegate.  Would  not  this  have  been  wiser  and  worthier  than 
to  undertake  responsibilities  so  grave  with  purposes  or  obligations 
so  incongruous." 

In  justice  to  Greeley  it  must  be  said  that  he  violently  defended  the 
majority  from  the  Democrat  attacks.  He  gave  the  minority  "  full 
faith  and  credit "  for  its  share  in  the  non-productiveness  of  the  con- 
vention. Further,  in  the  campaign  of  1867,  Greeley  consistently  main- 
tained the  Radical  doctrine  of  equal  suffrage  for  negroes.  The 
Herald  of  Sept.  28,  1867  remarks :  "  While  Greeley  proposes  to  fight 
through  this  fall  campaign  on  the  paramount  issue  of  the  '  almighty 
nigger ',  and  to  drop  all  side  issues,  Senator  Conkling  proposes  to 
sink  all  the  great  issues  of  the  day  in  the  little  side  issues  of  Andrew 
Johnson.     Gentlemen,  which  is  your  ticket,  Mr.  Johnson,  or  Pompey?" 

1  New  York  World,  September  26,  1867:  "The  adjournment  to  the 
12th  of  November  is  a  skulking  subterfuge  to  avoid  an  open  confes- 
sion of  failure.  .  .  .  When  the  Convention  meets  on  the  12th  of 
November,  it  will  be  as  destitute  of  any  legal  authority  as  a  caucus. 
...  In  the  farce  which  follows  this  well-hissed  play,  the  Republicans 
will  resort  to  all  sorts  of  dodges  and  expedients.  ...  If  the  Republi- 
cans are  really  in  favor  of  negro  suffrage,  .  .  .  why  did  they  refuse 
to  submit  it  as  a  Constitutional  amendment?"  "The  skulking  out  of 
the  Convention  project  will  cover  the  Republican  party  with  derision." 

Then  in  a  gentle  spirit  of  humility  the  World  adds:  "The  Demo- 


26l]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867     2fa 

The  Herald  was  uncompromising  in  its  criticism  of  the 
majority.1 

For  this,  as  for  the  whole  work  of  the  Convention  since  its 
organization,  the  Republican  majority  are  responsible.  ...  If 
the  whole  of  the  Democratic  members  had  absented  them- 
selves from  their  seats  from  the  first  day  of  the  Convention, 
the  Republicans,  if  faithful  in  their  attendance,  could  have 
completed  their  work  in  time  for  the  next  general  election. 
There  is  no  possibility,  therefore,  for  the  party  of  the  major- 
ity to  evade  the  responsibility  for  the  disgraceful  failure  of 
the  Convention,  and  that  failure  can  be  attributed  only  to  one 
of  two  causes — incompetency  or  dishonesty. 

The  Nation  *  in  a  calm,  judicious  article  admitted  that 
"  everybody  is  more  or  less  disappointed  both  with  what 
the  convention  has  accomplished  and  with  what  it  promises. 
It  has  not  dealt  boldly  with  any  of  the  abuses  it  was  ex- 
pected to  remedy."  This  failure  on  the  part  of  the  Radical 
majority  to  bring  the  convention  to  a  close  in  time  for  sub- 
mission at  the  regular  November  election  was  attributed  to 
cowardice.  The  Democrats  maintained  that  the  recess  was 
taken  to  avoid  a  confession  of  failure.  Further,  the  ma- 
jority was  accused  of  taking  this  method  to  evade  bringing 
the  question  of  negro  suffrage  to  a  vote  at  the  next  election. 
The  failure  of  the  majority  to  bring  the  burning  question 
of  negro  suffrage  to  a  vote  caused  it  to  be  the  object  of 
ridicule,  to  all  appearances  rightfully  deserved.  To  attempt 
the  reconciliation  of  the  convention's  resolutions  for  "  im- 

cratic  party  has  reason  to  be  thankful  that  these  odious  schemes  of 
mis-rule  have  miscarried,  and  that  the  total  net  result  of  the  Con- 
vention is  a  new  weapon  to  be  used  against  the  Republicans.  Let  it  be 
brandished  in  their  faces.  Let  it  be  thrust  into  their  entrails.  Let 
them  be  smitten  with  it  'hip  and  thigh.'" 

1  New  York  Herald,  September  26,  1867. 

*  The  Nation,  October  3,  1867,  p.  274. 


262        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [262 

partial  suffrage  "  1  with  its  action  seems  to  emphasize  the 
truth  of  the  Democratic  position.  The  fact  that  the  con- 
vention was  under  the  absolute  control  of  the  Radicals  war- 
rants the  assumption  that  they  might  have  finished  their 
work  in  the  early  autumn.  Even  the  New  York  Times  * 
could  not  refrain  from  uttering  a  lament : 

It  is  impossible  not  to  feel  that  the  Constitutional  Convention 
thus  far  is  a  failure.  It  has  done  nothing  of  the  things  ex- 
pected from  it,  nor  has  it  shown  any  courage  or  energy  in 
grappling  with  the  various  reforms  which  we  demanded  for 
the  public  good.  Its  action  has  been  timid,  halting  and  utterly 
indecisive. 

Another  stumbling-block  was  in  store  for  the  Re- 
publican party  on  the  question  of  negro  suffrage.  The  fact 
that  their  State  convention,  held  at  Syracuse  on  September 
25,  1867,  nad  incorporated  in  their  platform  a  plank 3 
which  approved  the  action  of  Congress  on  March  2,  1867, 
forcing  negro  suffrage  upon  the  Southern  States,  was  a 
severe  handicap.4    "  The  negro  suffrage  resolve  of  the  con- 

1  Proceedings  and  Debates,  vol.  v,  p.  3597.  Art.  ii,  sec.  1 :  "  Every 
male  inhabitant  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  who  shall  have  been 
a  citizen  for  ten  days  and  a  resident  of  the  State  for  one  year  next 
preceding  an  election,  and  for  the  last  four  months  a  resident  of  the 
county  where  he  may  offer  his  vote,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  .  .  .  pro- 
vided that  such  citizen  shall  have  been  for  thirty  days  next  preceding 
the  election  a  resident  of  the  town  or  ward,  and  for  ten  days  of  the 
election  district  in  which  he  offers  his  vote." 

1  New  York  Times,  September  26,  1867. 

•  "  Resolved :  That,  as  Republicans  of  the  State  of  New  York  recog- 
nizing the  obligation  of  consistency  and  straight- forwardness  in  sup- 
port of  the  great  principles  we  profess,  we  unhesitatingly  declare  that 
suffrage  should  be  impartial,  that  it  is  a  right  not  to  be  limited  by 
property  or  color."    Annual  Cyc,  1867,  p.  543. 

4  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  27,  1867.  James  Gordon  Bennett  spoke  of 
the  Radical  platform  as  a  "  sneaking,  diluted,  cowardly,  fraudulent 
affair"  and  its  treatment  of  the  negro  suffrage  question,  as  well  as 
other  questions,  as  "timid"  and  "gingerly." 


263]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867     26$ 

vention  is  also  an  apology  which  accuses  the  party  that 
makes  it."  ■  "  The  Republicans  claim  to  be  a  majority  in 
the  State;  and  if  they  are,  they  could  have  conferred  suf- 
frage on  negroes  in  this  election,  if  they  had  chosen.  What 
a  barefaced  sham  it  is  to  make  a  barren  resolve  in  favor  of 
black  suffrage,  instead  of  submitting  it  to  the  people  and 
establishing  it.  If  you  are  in  favor  of  negro  suffrage,  why 
not  confer  it  at  once?  How  can  you  blame  the  South  for 
hesitating  when  you  hesitate?  If  you  shrink  from  giving 
the  ballot  to  a  few  thousand  negroes  at  home,  why  do  you 
insist  that  it  should  be  conferred  on  millions  in  the  South?"2 
These  questions  put  by  the  IV  or  Id  are  representative  of  the 
arguments  used  by  the  various  Democratic  papers. 

The  Nation  attributed  the  lack  of  success  in  the  conven- 
tion proceedings  to  two  main  causes:  the  agitation  in  Fed- 
eral politics,  and  "  the  indifference  of  the  public  to  all  its 
doings." 

The  proceedings  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  this  State 
furnish  a  remarkable  illustration  of  the  injurious  effects  upon 
the  work  of  local  reform  of  the  agitation  now  raging  in  Fed- 
eral politics.  .  .  .  The  confusing  influence  upon  it  of  Federal 
politics  has  been  well  illustrated  in  its  action  on  the  suffrage 
question.  .  .  .  The  Convention  has  not  been  called  together  to 
help  in  the  diffusion  through  the  Union  of  equal  rights.  It 
has  been  called  to  remedy  the  defects  in  the  government  of 
the  State  of  New  York;  and  the  imposition  of  a  property 
qualification  on  colored  persons,  though  an  important  defect, 
was  by  no  means  the  most  important  of  the  defects.  It  has 
been  put  in  the  first  place,  and  taken  up  most  time,  simply 
because  of  its  bearing  on  the  course  of  reconstruction  at  the 

1  New  York  World,  September  27,  1867. 

■  New  York  Times,  September  25,  1867.  The  Times  thought  that  the 
convention  could  have  at  least  made  a  separate  submission  at  the  fall 
election  on  the  question  of  suffrage. 


264        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [264 

South.  The  Democrats  opposed  it  not  because  they  anticipate 
any  mischief  from  the  removal  of  an  odious  discrimination 
against  a  few  hundred  citizens,  but  because  they  fear  the  in- 
fluence of  the  change  on  the  conflict  between  privilege  and 
Democracy  at  the  South.  The  Republicans  support  it  not  be- 
cause they  fear  the  property  qualification  to  be  a  grievous 
burden  to  the  negroes,  or  because  they  feel  that  its  removal 
will  be  any  sensible  benefit  to  the  state,  but  because  its  main- 
tenance would  tell  against  their  cause  at  Washington.1 

The  up-State  papers  of  the  Radicals  gave  daily  attention 
to  the  movements  in  the  constitutional  convention,2  and 
in  so  far  as  they  noticed  the  Democratic  attacks  upon  its 
failure  to  face  the  issue  of  negro  suffrage,  the  belief  was 
comfortably  expressed  that  the  legislature  would  legiti- 
matize the  convention  upon  reconvening.3  The  Buffalo 
Express  attempted  to  minimize  the  Democratic  attacks  by 
disclosing  the  consistent  endeavors  of  the  Democratic 
minority  in  the  convention  to  obstruct  the  work  of  the  ma- 
jority.4 The  Democratic  journals  up-State  claimed  that 
the  constitutional  convention  was  a  failure  in  every  respect,5 
and  that  it  had  legally  ceased  to  exist.6  The  Buffalo  Daily 
Courier  recommended  that  the  Radicals'  plan  for  the  bridg- 
ing over  of  an  election  be  patented.7  "  Too  weak  to  live 
and  too  infirm  to  die,  it  refuses  to  adjourn,"  said  the 
Argus,9  "  and  yet  is  incapable  of  meeting  ". 

1  The  Nation,  October  3,  1867,  p.  274. 

1  Buffalo  Express  gave  the  fullest  account. 

*  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  25,  28,  1867. 

*  Buffalo  Express,  Sept.  28,  1867. 

6  Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  Sept.  24,  1867. 

•  Utica  Daily  Observer,  Sept.  25,  1867. 
1  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Sept.  25,  1867. 

•  Albany  Argus,  Sept.  25,  1867. 


265]      THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  1867     2^ 

The  revised  constitution  was  the  center  of  attack  in 
the  campaign  of  1869.  The  fact  that  the  Republicans 
had  controlled  the  convention  and  had  insisted  upon  a 
negro  suffrage  clause,  determined  the  Democrats  upon  its 
defeat.  The  keynote  was  given  to  the  campaign  when  the 
Democratic  State  Convention  ■  at  Syracuse  declared  that 

the  amended  Constitution  of  this  State  in  its  various  schedules 
to  be  submitted  to  the  electors  does  not  commend  itself  to  the 
favor  of  the  Democrats  of  the  State,  either  by  the  motives  in 
which  it  was  conceived,  or  by  the  manner  in  which  it  was 
presented,  or  its  intrinsic  worth.2 

There  appears  to  be  little  question  that  the  concentrated 
power  of  a  great  political  organism  was  sufficient  to  defeat 
the  constitution.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  influence 
of  the  Democrats  in  this  State  was  in  the  ascendant  at  this 
time.  The  constitution  suffered  defeat  by  a  majority  of 
66,521  votes.8  The  majority  of  the  Democrats  for  that 
year  on  the  votes  for  State  officers  was  over  20,000.  The 
total  vote  cast  for  the  office  of  secretary  of  state  was  127,- 
316 4  more  than  that  cast  for  the  constitution.  These 
figures  would  seem  to  show  that  the  vote  on  the  constitution 
was  not  entirely  on  party  lines.  In  their  State  platform  for 
1869  the  Republicans  were  given  small  light  to  follow  in 
regard  to  the  constitution,  no  reference  being  made  to  it. 

We  may  state,  by  way  of  summary,  certain  of  the  more 
powerful  causes  that  operated  to  effect  the  defeat  of  the 

1  Held  at  Syracuse,  September  22,  1869. 
1  Annual  Cyc,  1869.  p.  488. 

•  Tribune  Almanac,  1870,  p.  51. 

On  the  Constitution. 

*  Ibid.     Secretary  of  State,  Dem.    330,974  Against    290,456 

Rep.     310,733  For    223,935 

Total  641,707  514,391 


266        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [266 

constitution.  The  constitutional  convention  at  best  was 
never  popular  being  always  regarded  by  the  people  with  a 
degree  of  suspicion.  This  unrest  was  intensified  by 
the  criticisms  of  Horace  Greeley,  who  attempted  to  stem 
the  tide  too  late.  The  canal  frauds  which  were  being 
disclosed  at  this  time  presented  an  unguarded  flank  for  at- 
tack upon  Republican  dogma.  The  Radicals'  policy  of  re- 
construction lost  many  votes.  Then,  doubtless,  many  of  the 
propositions  proposed  by  the  convention  were  too  advanced 
for  the  people  at  large  at  that  time.  The  more  important 
points  have  since  been  incorporated  in  our  constitution  and 
time  has  shown  the  unimportance  of  others,  which  have 
consequently  been  dropped.  Two  causes,  however,  appear 
to  rank  above  all  others  as  contributory  to  the  overthrow 
of  the  proposed  constitution.  First,  the  Republicans  dur- 
ing and  after  the  convention  failed  to  seize  the  earliest  op- 
portunity to  show  the  sincerity  of  their  purpose  as  to  negro 
suffrage.  Secondly,  and  more  important  still,  the  Demo- 
crats under  the  direction  of  the  Tweed  ring,  which  at  this 
time  held  New  York  City  in  a  grip  of  iron  and  was  extend- 
ing its  influence  up-State,  were  united  against  it.  Natur- 
ally, the  ring  had  no  wish  to  foster  changes  potentially 
inimical  to  its  rule.  Lastly,  it  is  altogether  significant 
that  independent  Republican  thinkers  themselves  aided  in 
the  constitution's  downfall. 


CHAPTER  X 
The  Alliance  of  Wall  Street  and  the  Legislature 

The  political  history  of  New  York  State  for  the  year 
1868  would  be  incomplete  without  a  treatment  of  the  "Erie 
Railroad  War  ",  which  involved  the  economic  and  political 
foundations  of  the  State.  Millions  were  toyed  with  in  Wall 
Street  strategy  which  caused  stagnation  in  the  country's 
transportation,  with  a  consequent  suffering  among  the 
working  class;  the  judicial  ermine  was  disgraced  and  the 
legislative  honor  of  the  State  made  a  mockery.  The  close 
relation  between  the  Erie  and  the  politics  of  the  State  will 
appear  as  the  story  unfolds. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  transformation  of  the  New  York 
and  Erie  into  the. Erie  Railroad,  the  former  had  expended 
$35,320,907  in  construction  and  equipment.1  At  the 
period  we  treat  in  this  chapter,  the  outlay  had  increased 
to    $50,000,000,    the    trackage    had    expanded    into    773 

1  Mott,   Between  the  Ocean  and  the  Lakes;   the  Story  of  the  Erie 
(New  York,  1899),  p.  136. 
New  York  and  Erie, 

Its  capital  stock  in   fund  was $11,000,000 

Its  bonded  debt  was 26,351,000 

Its  existing  floating  debt,  i860,  was 2,725,620 

It  had  earned  during  the  19  years  of  its  operative 

existence    : 51,098,106 

At  a  total  operating  expense  of 32,346,029 

Leaving  its  net  earnings  for  the  19  years 18,752,077 

And  dividends  had  been  paid  to  the  amount  of 3,481,405 

While  interests  on  the  bonds   and   drafts   on  the 

treasury  had   absorbed    15,270,672 

267]  267 


268        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [268 

miles,  while  the  annual  revenue  had  grown  to  the  huge  sum 
of  $16,500,000.  This  enterprise  was  one  which  appeared 
to  present  no  mean  opportunity  for  an  unscrupulous  man 
or  men  to  use  for  purposes  of  self-aggrandizement.  Much 
fairer  would  the  name  of  Erie  have  appeared  in  times  past 
had  it  escaped  its  designing  friends.1 

Chief  among  these  we  find  at  the  period  of  our  chapter 
two  central  figures,  Daniel  Drew  and  Cornelius  Vanderbilt, 
with  a  third,  Jay  Gould,  soon  to  out-top  the  former  two. 
Daniel  Drew,  then  in  his  seventy-first  year,  had  been  and 
was  a  man  to  be  reckoned  with  in  Wall  Street.  His  first 
appearance  in  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Erie  had  taken 
place  fifteen  years  previous.2  Drew  had  early  turned  his 
attention  to  the  steamboat  interest,  where  he  had  built  up  a 
fortune.  In  character  he  was  a  peculiar  combination  of 
good  and  evil,  with  the  latter  in  predominance.  He  was 
superstitious,  yet  faithless;  illiterate,  shrewd,  unscrupulous, 
yet  timid. 

Cornelius  Vanderbilt,  sometime  ally  and  opponent  of 
Drew,  has  a  similar  history.  Vanderbilt  was  three  years 
Drew's  elder,  and  had  origin  also  in  humble  circumstances. 
While  Drew  had  driven  cattle  into  New  York  City  as  a  boy, 
Vanderbilt  ferried  passengers  and  merchandise  between 
Staten  Island  and  New  York.  Vanderbilt  had  built 
up  a  greater  fortune  than  Drew  in  the  steamboat  in- 
dustry.3 Both  men  were  equally  illiterate,  unscrupulous 
and  selfish.  Their  main  point  of  difference,  however,  was 
one  of  temperament.  Drew  was  sombre,  while  Vanderbilt 
was  buoyant,  hence  an  explanation  of  the  former's  bearish 

1  Cf.,  Ellis  Paxson  Oberholtzer,  Jay  Cooke — Financier  of  the  Civil 
War  (Philadelphia,  1907),  vol.  ii,  p.  1  et  seq. 

'Charles  Francis  Adams,  Chapters  of  Erie  (Boston,  1871),  p.  5. 

3  See  Life  of  Cornelius  Vanderbilt — Parton,  Famous  Americans 
(Boston,  1867),  pp.  375-00. 


269]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  269 

tendencies  and  the  latter' s  uniform  operations  as  a  bull  in 
Wall  Street.  Time  has  given  the  two  men  their  relative 
niche  in  history.  Undoubtedly  Vanderbilt  was  the  larger 
man,  certainly  in  his  conception  of  such  an  ultimate  rail- 
road system  as  to-day  binds  a  large  portion  of  the  conti- 
nent and  honors  his  name.1  Drew  had  no  other  apparent 
conception  than  to  use  the  Erie  for  the  furtherance  of  his 
own  personal  ends. 

For  our  purpose  the  prelude  to  the  war  of  1868  began 
with  the  Erie  raid  of  1865. 2  The  story  may  be  told  con- 
cisely. Erie  was  quoted  on  the  market  in  the  early  part'of 
r866  at  97.*  The  bete  noir  of  the  Erie,  i.  e.,  its  floating 
debt  was  ever  present.  The  Erie  needed  money.  Drew 
most  opportunely  had  money  to  lend  it — upon  security.  He 
proposed  to  loan  the  company  $3,480,000  for  two  years  at 
seven  per  cent,  on  28,000  shares  of  stock,  or  $3,000,000 
convertible  bonds  at  sixty  per  cent  as  collateral.4  There 
was  to  be  no  margin  of  depreciation  and  the  loan  was  pay- 
able as  wanted  at  any  time  within  four  months.  The  com- 
pany could  retain  all  dividends  and  pay  off  the  loan  or  any 
portion  of  it  on  ten  days'  notice.  The  company  accepted 
the  offer.  Drew,  in  addition,  was  equipped  with  10,000 
shares  of  stock  placed  at  his  disposal,  which  the  company 
had  obtained  through  using  the  law  which  empowered  any 
company  to  issue  its  own  stock  in  exchange  for  another 
company's,  the  property  of  which  was  under  lease  to  it.5 

1  Adams,  op.  cit.,  pp.  10-11. 

•  There  were  two  laws  which  gave  Drew  opportunity  to  execute  his 
masterpiece  in  high  finance.  Vide  Laws  of  New  York,  1861,  Ch.  119, 
pp.  213-15;  Laws  of  New  York,  1850,  Ch.  140,  pp.  211-35. 

3  Cf.,  New  York  Herald,  Jan.  7,  1866  —  Erie,  96^ ;  Jan.  8,  1866  — 
Erie,  g6l/2;  Jan.  8,  1866— Erie,  06^;  Jan.  4,  1866— Erie,  97;  Jan.  3, 
1866— Erie,  97H- 

4  Senate  Documents,  1868,  vol.  v,  no.  67, ^  Sched.  A.,  pp.  32-3. 

•  Mott,  op.  cit.,  p.  142. 


2yo        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [2yo 

On  January  6,  1866,  the  Buffalo,  Bradford  and  Pittsburgh 
Railroad  '  had  been  leased  to  the  Erie  for  a  term  of  four 
hundred  and  ninety-nine  years.  This  lease  under  the  above 
law,  placed  at  Drew's  convenience  stock  capable  of  being 
transformed  into  Erie  stock  in  time  of  need. 

The  time  was  ripe  for  Drew's  harvest  Cornelius  Van- 
derbilt  was  endeavoring  to  obtain  possession  of  the  Erie 
through  stock  purchase  and  to  cripple  Drew  by  a  strong 
bull  movement  in  Wall  Street.  Drew  aided  in  his  rival's 
expected  coup.  He  contracted  heavily  to  deliver  on  a  cer- 
tain day  Erie  stock  at  the  existing  quotation  97. 2  The  fact 
that  Drew  appeared  short  of  Erie,  in  conjunction  with  Van- 
derbilt's  bull  movement,  made  Erie  buoyant.  Speculation  was 
rife.  The  leading  question  was,  where  would  Drew  obtain 
his  stock  to  fulfil  his  contracts.  On  the  appointed  day  his 
source  of  supply  suddenly  appeared.  Drew  simply  trans- 
formed into  an  equivalent  amount  of  capital  stock  the  $3,- 
000,000  issue  of  convertible  Erie  bonds,  and  fifty-eight 
thousand  shares  of  stock  were  suddenly  thrown  on  Wall 
Street.  The  bulls  were  caught ;  before  they  could  rally,  the 
market  price  had  fallen  to  fifty.3  Cornelius  Vanderbilt  was 
the  chief  loser  in  this  legerdemain — a  fact  that  Drew  was 
forced  to  recall  thereafter.  This  transaction,  no  more  nor 
less  creditable  than  the  usual  Wall  Street  gamble  with 
loaded  dice,  was  looked  upon  at  that  time  as  one  of  the 
great  successes  in  the  history  of  the  Stock  Exchange. 

In  1867,  after  rejuvenating  the  Harlem,  Vanderbilt 
added  to  his  possessions  those  roads  which  now  constitute 
the  New  York  Central  system.  Still  nursing  the  wound 
received  from  Drew  the  year  previous,  Vanderbilt  turned 

1  Vide  testimony  of  J.  C.  Bancroft  Davis,  Senate  Documents,  1868, 
vol.  v,  no.  67,  pp.  68-81 ;  also  vide  lease  of  the  Buffalo,  Bradford  and 
Pittsburgh  Railroad,  Ibid.,  Sched.  B.,  pp.  34-40. 

*  Mott,  op.  cit.,  p.  141.  8  Adams,  op.  cit.,  p.  7. 


27 1 ]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  2JI 

his  eyes  toward  the  Erie.  Through  the  aid  of  the  Boston 
interests,  who  were  exploiting  the  Boston,  Hartford  and 
Erie,  Vanderbilt  was  enabled  to  obtain  the  election  of  John 
S.  Eldridge,  as  president  of  the  Erie,  the  election  of  Frank 
Work,  a  protege  of  Vanderbilt's,  to  a  seat  in  the  board,  and 
the  defeat  of  Daniel  Drew  as  director.1 

At  the  election  in  which  Drew  suffered  defeat,  two  new 
figures  were  added  to  the  board.  Jay  Gould  and  James 
Fisk,  Jr.,  both  practically  unknown  outside  of  Wall  Street.2 
However,  they  were  not  destined  to  remain  long  in  ob- 
livion. Jay  Gould,  also,  came  from  low  surroundings. 
Born  a  poor  boy  and  early  left  an  orphan  in  the  western 
part  of  New  York  State,  he  became  a  clerk  in  a  country 
store,  learned  bookkeeping  meanwhile,  became  a  surveyor 
in  a  survey  of  his  county,  bought  out  the  map  firm,  then 
wrote  a  history  of  the  county  to  go  with  the  map,  by  selling 
which  he  made  his  first  $1,000,  all  before  he  was  twenty-one 
years  of  age.  At  this  time  a  man  with  a  tannery  in  Penn- 
sylvania took  Gould  into  partnership.  Gould  knew  nothing 
about  the  business  at  the  start  but  in  three  years  had  bought 
out  his  partner.  His  first  acquaintance  with  New  York 
was  made  through  his  visits  to  the  City  in  order  to  deal  with 
the  wholesale  buyers  direct,  thus  avoiding  the  middleman's 
profits.  He  soon  saw  that  there  were  more  ways  to  accu- 
mulate money  in  New  York  City,  than  in  the  tanning  busi- 
ness.3   "  Jim  "  Fisk,  as  he  was  called,  was  a  shrewd  oper- 

1  Senate  Documents,  1868,  vol.  v,  no.  67,  pp.  42-3;  New  York  Herald, 
Oct.  9,  10,  1867.  One  Underwood,  a  Vanderbilt  supporter  in  the 
directory,  resigned  immediately  and  Drew's  election  to  the  vacancy 
was  followed  by  his  appointment  to  his  old  post  as  treasurer.  This 
move  caused  great  wonderment  and  uneasiness. 

■  See  papers  at  elections  Oct.  8,  1867 :  New  York  Times,  Oct.  10, 
1867;  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  10,  1867. 

•James  Parton,  Men  of  Progress  (Cincinnati,  1670),  passim. 
Stephen  Fiske,  Off -Hand  Portraits  of  Prominent  New  Yorkers  (New 
York,  1884),  pp.  151-3. 


2J2        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [2J2 

ator  on  the  Street,  though  not  of  Gould's  calibre.     He  was 
a  bon  vivant,  indulging  in  all  forms  of  excess,1 

An  interlude  in  open  hostilities  occurred,  which  lasted 
for  nearly  half  a  year.  However,  Vanderbilt  was  but  gath- 
ering strength  to  renew  his  attack  on  the  Erie  strongholds. 
Vanderbilt  reopened  hostilities  on  February  17,  1868.2  Mr. 
Frank  Work,  the  sole  remaining  director  under  the  Van- 
derbilt influence,  applied  through  his  attorneys,  Rapallo  and 
Spencer,  for  an  injunction  before  Judge  Barnard,  of  the 
New  York  Supreme  Court.3  This  injunction  was  to  re- 
strain the  board  of  directors  of  the  Erie  from  paying  the 
principal  or  interest  on  the  money  borrowed  from  Drew  as 
treasurer  in  1866.  Drew  was  restrained  from  bringing 
any  action  to  compel  settlement  and  the  company  likewise 
from  releasing  him  from  any  of  his  obligations.  A  tem- 
porary injunction,  as  customary,  was  granted,  with  a 
further  hearing  assigned  for  February  21st.4  Vanderbilt's 
apparent  motives  for  this  move  were,  first  to  annoy  Drew, 
and  second,  to  act  as  a  cover  for  his  own  designs  in  Erie.5 
Without  waiting  for  the  21st,  Vanderbilt  made  another  as- 
sault upon  the  Erie.  Through  Attorney-General  Marshall 
B.   Champlain,   he  petitioned  before  Judge   Barnard  6  for 

1  Carl  Hovey,  The  Life  Story  of  J.  Pierpont  Morgan  (New  York, 
ion),  PP.  53-4- 

a  Vanderbilt's  ire  was  aroused  by  Drew's  infringement  on  a  cher- 
ished plan  of  Vanderbilt's,  through  an  agreement  with  the  Michigan 
Southern  and  Northern  Indiana  Railroad  Company  giving  Drew  a 
broad  gauge  line  to  Chicago.  See  New  York  Times,  Mar.  II,  1867; 
New  York  Sun,  Mar.  11,  1867. 

»  New  York  Herald,  Feb.  18,  1867. 

*  Ibid.,  Feb.  22,  1867. 

*  Mott,  Story  of  Erie,  148. 

*  The  feasibility  of  Judge  Barnard,  as  a  potent  ally  had  been  early 
recognized  by  the  various  railroad  interests,  as  well  as  by  Tweed  and 
Company. 


273]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  2yx 

Daniel  Drew's  removal  from  the  office  of  treasurer.  The 
alleged  cause  for  the  removal  was  that  Mr.  Drew  and  his 
associates  had  possessed  themselves  of  a  worthless  road,1 
in  which  they  were  the  chief  stockholders,  then  had  pro- 
cured the  issue  of  a  large  amount  of  Erie  stock,  which  they 
had  exchanged  for  the  stock  of  the  subsidiary  road. 

Justice  Barnard  temporarily  suspended  Drew  from  his 
position  as  treasurer  and  director  and  ordered  him  to  show 
cause  why  the  prayer  of  the  petitioner  should  not  be 
granted  on  the  21st.  On  March  3rd,  Justice  Barnard  issued 
an  injunction  which  restrained  the  defendants  from  the 
issue  of  any  new  capital  stock  other  than  the  241,058  shares 
previously  appearing  in  the  company's  reports,  or  any 
further  conversion  of  bonds  into  stock,  or  the  guaranteeing 
of  any  connecting  road.2  Further,  Drew  was  ordered  to 
restore  to  the  Erie  company  the  58,000  shares  of  stock 
which  he  had  received  in  May,  1866,  and  the  10,000  shares 
acquired  in  exchange  for  the  Buffalo,  Bradford  and  Pitts- 
burgh bonds.8 

To  the  initiated  it  appeared  that  the  leader  of  the  bears 
had  been  bound  hand  and  foot.  If  the  law  had  any  value, 
how  could  it  be  otherwise?  But,  injunctions  had  little  ap- 
parent effect  on  Daniel  Drew.  He  continued  short 4  in  Erie 
in  the  face  of  a  rising  market.  Converting  $5,000,000  of 
bonds  into  Erie  stock  he  flooded  the  Street.  One  hundred 
thousand  shares  of  Erie  were  absorbed  in  less  than  two 

1  The  Buffalo,  Bradford  and  Pittsburg  Railroad. 
■  New  York  Herald,  Mar.  4,  5,  1867. 

•  Mott,  op.  cit.,  p.   149.    Cf.  William   Swinton,  How  the  Ring  ran 
Pacific  Mail:  a  story  of  Wall  Street  (New  York,  1867),  passim. 

*  In  stock  exchange  parlance  an  operator  is  short  when  he  has  sold 
that  of  which  he  is  not  possessed.    He  gambles  on  a  fall. 


274        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [274 

weeks,  for  which  $7,000,000  was  paid.1  This,  in  addition 
to  the  58,000  shares  which  Drew  issued  in  1866,  were 
chiefly  absorbed  by  the  Vanderbilt  interests.  The  demorali- 
zation caused  the  Stock  Exchange  to  take  action  against 
the  Erie.  It  was  ordered  that  no  certificates  of  Erie  stock 
dated  after  March  7th  should  be  honored.  This  order  pro- 
duced an  effect  in  striking  contrast  to  the  mandates  of  the 
court. 

March  10th,  the  day  set  for  the  return  of  the  writ  was 
the  day  expected  for  a  corner.  But  Drew  surprised  his 
antagonists  before  that.  Drew  knew  the  advantage  to  him- 
self of  the  co-ordinate  jurisdiction  of  the  thirty-three 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court.  An  order  was  obtained  by 
his  counsel  from  Justice  Ransom  Balcom,  of  Binghamton, 
which  suspended  Frank  Work  from  the  Erie  directory,  on 
the  allegation  that  his  acts  were  injurious  to  the  company.2 
All  parties  to  the  proceedings  previously  instituted  were 
ordered  to  appear  before  Justice  Balcom  at  Cortlandville, 
N.  Y.,  on  March  7th.  All  other  proceedings  were  ordered 
to  be  staid.3  When  this  order  became  known,  another  com- 
plication arose  in  the  legal  tangle.  The  Vanderbilt  inter- 
est immediately  instituted  a  new  suit  before  Justice  George 
G.  Barnard,  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  New  York  City,  in 
the  name  of  Richard  Schell.4  An  order  was  issued  which 
enjoined  the  Erie  directors  from  meeting  or  transacting 
business  unless  Director  Work  was  present  with  unre- 
stricted powers. 

The  battle  was  now  approaching  the  crisis.  Commodore 
Vanderbilt  had  a  consuming  desire   for  Erie  stock,   and 

1  New  York  Sun,  Mar.  6-19,  1868;  New  York  Times,  Mar.  8-20,  1868. 
*  New  York  Herald,  Mar.  6,  1868. 

'  Adams,  Chapters  of  Erie,  p.  23.     New  York  Herald,  Mar.  6,  1868. 
4  Adams,  op.  cit.,  p.  25. 


275]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  2J$ 

Daniel  Drew  most  charitably  decided  to  satisfy  his  craving. 
At  a  previous  meeting  of  the  board  of  directors  held  Feb- 
ruary 19,  1868,  an  optimistic  account  of  the  road's  condi- 
tion had  been  issued  by  the  general  superintendent  and 
made  public.1  On  the  adjournment  of  this  meeting,  the 
executive  committee  3  had  met,  with  the  result  that  it  was 
voted  to  issue  $10,000,000  worth  of  convertible  bonds. 
Five  millions  were  immediately  placed  on  the  market ; 3  the 
executive  committee  having  resolved  to  sell  these  bonds  at 
not  less  than  72 1/2.  As  the  company  could  not  issue  stock 
outright  at  less  than  par,  and  as  its  bonds  bore  interest, 
hence  were  useless  for  Street  operation,  the  issue  of  con- 
vertible bonds  was  Drew's  sole  resource.  In  a  few  minutes 
from  the  adjournment  of  the  executive  committee,  Mr. 
Daniel  Drew's  broker,  having  been  guaranteed  against  loss, 
had  purchased  the  issue  of  $5,000,000  and  had  housed 
50,000  shares  in  his  safe,  to  be  used  at  Drew's  bidding. 
These  were  distributed  on  February  29th  to  various  of 
Drew's  brokers.  When  the  Barnard  injunction  spoken  of 
was  issued  three  days  later,  with  the  consequent  rise  in  Erie 
stock,  the  other  $5,000,000  were  suddenly  launched  upon 
the  unsuspecting  market.4 

Before  these  bonds  had  been  converted,  Barnard's  in- 
junction was  served  upon  the  chief  operators  of  the  Erie. 
Service  was  returnable  on  March  10th.    However,  the  Erie 

»New  York  Herald,  Mar.  5,  1868. 

2  At  this  meeting  the  board  had  clothed  the  executive  committee 
with  full  power  for  the  welfare  of  the  road  to  issue  new  stock,  which 
was  done  in  all  to  the  extent  of  450,000  shares.  The  wording  was 
vague.    Senate  Documents,  1868,  vol.  v,  no.  67,  pp.  75-6. 

8  Senate  Documents,  1868,  vol.  v,  no.  67,  pp.  75-6.  The  executive 
committee  had  met  in  two  sessions,  one  at  noon,  the  other  later  in  the 
afternoon.  It  was  between  these  sessions  that  the  $5,000,000  of  con- 
vertible bonds  were  sold  to  David  Groesbeck  &  Co. 

4  New  York  Herald,  Mar.  1,  1868. 


276        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [276 

chieftains  decided  to  break  the  threatened  "  corner  "  on  the 
9th.  Saturday  night,  of  the  7th,  Mr.  Groesbeck,  one  of 
Drew's  companions-at-arms,  secured  a  tool  to  act  as' pro- 
ducer of  the  bonds  and  took  him  to  the  home  of  the  Erie 
counsel,  where  the  various  impedimenta  *  were  being  pre- 
pared for  the  bewilderment  of  Vanderbilt.  A  contract  of 
sale  for  the  bonds  was  agreed  upon  and  drawn  up,  which 
transferred  the  bonds  to  the  nominal  purchaser,  who  gave 
Drew  power  of  attorney  to  dispose  of  the  bonds  as  he  saw 
fit,  through  a  promissory  note  for  the  purchase  money.  At 
the  close  of  the  deal,  a  demand  was  made  for  the  conver- 
sion of  the  bonds  into  stocks  by  the  Erie,  as  per  contract, 
which  of  course  was  refused.  The  purchaser  then  made 
affidavit  to  the  effect  that  demand  had  been  made  for  the 
stock  and  refused.  This  affidavit  had  been  previously  pre- 
pared for  the  proper  signatures.  The  intention  at  the  base 
of  this  act  was  to  seek  a  proper  justice  and  obtain  a  writ 
of  mandamus  to  compel  the  Erie  to  convert  its  bonds  into 
stock.  The  evening's  work  was  then  ended,  all  papers  were 
ready,  the  bonds  had  been  arranged  for,  and  the  certificates 
of  stock  signed  in  blank,  were  ready  for  delivery.2  The 
mine  was  prepared. 

The  Monday  following  found  the  drama  rapidly  advanc- 
ing. Jim  Fisk  seized  from  a  messenger  and  made  off  with 
the  50,000  shares  of  stock,  which  Treasurer  Drew  had 
agreed  to  sell  to  the  Messrs.  Fisk  and  Gould  at  eighty,  but 
which  the  secretary  had  been  enjoined  from  issuing.    These 

1  Affidavits.  New  prayers  for  Writs  and  Injunctions.  The  vice- 
president  was  signing  certificates  of  stock  in  the  event  that  a  modi- 
fication of  the  injunction  should  be  obtained. 

*  Senate  Documents,  1868,  vol.  v,  No.  67,  pp.  87-8.  Vice-President 
Alexander  L.  Diven  spent  Saturday  night,  even  breaking  the  Sabbath, 
in  signing  certificates  of  stock  at  his  home.  Be  that  is  it  may,  he 
disclaimed  knowledge  that  they  were  to  be  used  for  the  issue  of  new 
stock. 


277 J  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  2JJ 

certificates  next  received  the  light  of  day  in  Wall  Street. 
Meanwhile  it  was  thought  advisable  on  the  part  of  the  Erie 
co-ad jutors  to  further  attempt  the  encloakment  of  their 
enterprise  under  the  robes  of  the  law.  After  an  unsuccess- 
ful attempt  to  obtain  a  writ  of  mandamus  from  Judge  Gil- 
bert of  the  Second  Judicial  District,  the  Erie  counsel  were 
successful  in  obtaining  from  the  same  judge  an  injunction 
in  the  name  of  Mr.  Belden,  Fisk's  partner.1  The  petition 
set  forth  the  claim  that  Justice  George  G.  Barnard  in  con- 
junction with  certain  others  had  entered  into  a  conspiracy 
to  use  the  courts  to  aid  in  their  speculation  in  Erie  stocks. 
Apparently,  Judge  Gilbert,  who  was  an  eminently  respected 
jurist,  was  able  to  believe  anything  of  his  Manhattan  col- 
league. His  injunction  restrained  all  parties,  to  suits  then 
pending,  from  further  action  in  any  direction.  This 
brought  the  matter  from  a  legal  viewpoint  to  a  complete 
stop.  To  move,  or  not  to  move,  in  either  case  violated  the 
injunction  of  one  or  the  other  court.  The  strategic  situa- 
tion could  not  have  been  more  favorably  conceived  to  suit 
Daniel  Drew. 

Fifty  thousand  shares  of  Erie  stock  were  hurled  into  the 
market,  before  a  new  injunction  could  be  obtained  from 
Justice  Barnard.  The  Vanderbilt  agents  unsuspectingly 
purchased  these  with  avidity,  the  price  rising  from  eighty 
to  eighty-three.  When  the  truth  became  known  on  the  ap- 
pearance of  fresh  certificates,  the  price  suddenly  dropped 
to  seventy-one.2  At  the  close  of  the  market  for  the  day 
the  Erie  quotations  read  seventy-eight.  Drew  had  won 
the  battle,  for  it  was  evident  that  the  Vanderbilt  corner  had 
failed.    The  question  was,  would  Vanderbilt  be  able  to  sus- 

1  New  York  Herald,  Mar.  12,  1868. 

»  Adams,  op.  cit.,  p.  29;  New  York  Times,  Mar.  II,  1868;  New  York 
Sun,  Mar.  II,  1868. 


278        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [278 

tain  his  loss.  This  he  did,  thus  preventing  a  financial  panic 
which  would  have  carried  him  with  it.  The  irony  of  the 
situation  must  have  presented  itself  to  Vanderbilt.  Instead 
of  crushing  his  opponent,  the  latter  retired  to  New  Jersey 
on  the  next  day  supplied  with  seven  million  dollars  of  Van- 
derbilt's  currency.1  The  retreat  to  Jersey  City  was  precipi- 
tated on  the  morning  of  the  nth  by  advance  intelligence 
that  orders  for  arrest  had  been  issued  against  Erie  directors, 
that  their  only  safety  lay  in  flight.  A  headlong  dash  for 
the  Jersey  City  ferry  ensued,  bales  of  money  and  valuable 
papers  were  hurriedly  seized  and  deported.  Some  waited 
until  nightfall  to  cross  in  rowboats.  In  all  only  two  di- 
rectors were  apprehended,  and  business  was  continued  by 
a  majority  of  the  executive  committee  at  the  Erie  station 
in  Jersey  City.2 

The  litigation  begun  in  the  New  York  courts  was  prolific 
with  bizarre  entanglements  until  both  sides  agreed  to  an  in- 
junction of  universal  application.  Judge  Gilbert  soon 
passed  out  of  the  fray.  He  refused  to  renew  his  injunc- 
tion, which  had  done  its  work.3  However,  Judge  Barnard 
exercised  his  prerogatives  to  the  last.  On  one  occasion  he 
sent  all  the  papers  which  related  to  the  conspiracy  alleged 
in  the  Gilbert  document,  to  the  grand  jury,  which  refused 
to  admit  jurisdiction  in  such  a  matter.  Again,  he  attempted 
to  clean  himself  of  taint  by  a  series  of  counter-affidavits. 

1  Adams,  op.  cit.,  p.  31;  New  York  Times,  Mar.  11,  12,  1868;  New 
York  Sun,  Mar.  II,  12,  1868. 

*  The  dingy  hotel  near  the  Erie  Station  where  the  exiles  made  their 
headquarters,  was  dubbed  "  Fort  Taylor."  New  York  Herald,  Mar. 
IS,  16,  18,  19,  1868;  New  York  Times,  Mar.  16,  17,  1868;  New  York 
Sun,  Mar.  16,  20,  1868.  Vanderbilt  emerged  from  his  stringent  situ- 
ation without  apparent  trouble.  His  calm  assurance  saved  a  panic. 
Drew's  direct  profit  was  $80,000,  incidentally  it  was  a  matter  of 
conjecture. 

*  New  York  Herald,  Mar.  19,  1868. 


2yg]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  2?g 

He  was  impugned  of  gross  venality  in  open  court.1  The 
tale  of  Mr.  Justice  Barnard's  interpretation  of  the  char- 
acter of  a  Supreme  Court  judge  is  too  long.  Suffice  to 
say  that  the  strange  storm  of  injunctions  and  counter-in- 
junctions had  for  an  object,  first,  the  appointment  of  a  re- 
ceiver to  handle  the  proceeds  of  the  100,000  shares  of  stock 
which  had  been  issued  in  violation  of  an  injunction;  sec- 
ond, the  pursuit  of  the  processes  against  the  Erie  directors 
for  contempt  of  court.2  In  connection  with  the  receiver- 
ship there  was  nothing  to  receive,  as  the  money  in  question 
was  all  safely  over  in  New  Jersey.  However,  after  the 
resignation  of  Mr.  Osgood,  Vanderbilt's  son-in-law,  Peter 
B.  Sweeny,  of  Tweed  ring  fame,  was  appointed  to  the 
vacancy.  He  was  allowed  $150,000  by  Justice  Barnard  as 
compensation  for  his  loss  of  opportunity  to  raid  the  Erie 
treasury.  The  writ  of  Justice  Barnard  was  arranged  in 
the  settlement  of  the  matter  between  the  litigants,  to  the 
extent  that  the  cases  wherein  contempt  had  been  committed 
received  the  nominal  fine  of  ten  dollars. 

At  this  point  in  the  story  of  the  "  Erie  Railroad  War  " 
the  setting  was  changed  from  Wall  Street  and  the  courts  to 
the  legislature.  If  we  are  to  judge  from  various  newspaper 
comments,  the  writings  of  special  investigators  and  the 
legislative  records,  it  may  be  safely  said  that  the  New  York 
legislature,  at  that  time,  was  corrupt.  Whether  more  or 
less  corrupt  than  at  other  times,  we  may  not  say.  Results 
would  justify  the  statement  that  from  1865  to  1870,  the 
New  York  legislature  was  the  plaything  of  the  "  Rings  ". 

The  New  York  legislature  now  aroused  itself  and  took 
cognizance  of  the  "  Erie  War  ",  which  was  being  waged 

1  New  York  Times,  Mar.  24,  1868.     Accusation  by  Mr.  James  Brady 
et  al. 
*  Mott,  The  Story  of  Erie,  p.  151 ;  New  York  Herald,  Mar.  24;  Apr. 

9.  20,  21,  24,   1868. 


280        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE       [28o 

without  and  within  its  gates.  On  March  5th,  Senator 
James  F.  Pierce,  of  the  second  district,  introduced  in  the 
senate  a  preamble  and  resolution  which  called  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  three  senators  to  investigate  the  "  Grave 
charges  .  .  .  made  in  the  newspapers  and  before  the  Su- 
preme Court,  in  reference  to  the  management  of  the  Erie 
Railway  Company."  *  Senator  Henry  W.  Genet,  of  New 
York,  through  doubtless  laudable  motives,  amended  the 
former  motion  so  that  it  directed  the  committee  to  report 
the  result  of  their  investigations  within  twenty  days.2  The 
committee  was  increased  to  five  on  the  following  day  on 
motion  of  Senator  Abner  C.  Mattoon,  of  the  twenty-first 
district,  who  received  an  appointment.3 

The  committee  held  four  meetings  in  all,  one  in  New 
York  and  the  others  at  Albany.4  The  witnesses  who  testi- 
fied were  Horatio  N.  Otis,5  secretary  of  the  Erie;  J.  C. 
Bancroft  Davis,  of  the  Erie  directory;  David  Groesbeck, 
Drew's  broker;  Gen.  A.  S.  Diven,  vice-president  of  the 
Erie ;  Henry  R.  Pierson,  of  the  directory ;  William  G.  Ed- 
wards, cashier  of  Bloodgood  &  Co.,  of  Wall  Street;  James 
M.  Cross,  a  contractor  of  Newark,  N.  J. ;  and  William  R. 

1  New  York  Times,  March  6,  1868;  New  York  Sun,  March  6,  1868. 

*  New  York  Herald,  Mar.  6,  1868. 

9  Mr.  Mattoon  had  his  son  appointed  as  a  sergeant-at-arms  to  the 
same  committee.  The  following  item  appears  in  the  supply  bill  for 
t868.  f  For  J.  H.  Mattoon,  for  services  and  expenses  as  clerk  and  as- 
sistant sergeant-at-arms  of  the  Committee  of  the  Senate  appointed 
to  investigate  the  affairs  of  the  Erie  Railway  Company,  one  hundred 
dollars."  (Laws  of  New  York,  1868,  C.  717,  p.  1586.)  The  members 
of  the  committee  were  as  follows:  James  F.  Pierce,  of  the  second 
district;  Abner  C.  Mattoon,  of  the  twenty-first  district;  Orlo  W. 
Chapman,  of  the  twenty-fourth  district;  Wolcott  J.  Humphrey,  of 
the  thirtieth  district. 

4  62  Broadway,  N.  Y.,  March  10th ;  and  at  the  Delevan  House, 
Albany.  March  13,  19  and  24. 

6  Senate  Documents,  1868,  vol.  v.  no.  67,  passim. 


28 1  ]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  28l 

Bradford,  of  the  firm  of  Fisk,  Belden  &  Co.  A  number  of 
other  witnesses  were  subpoenaed,  but  were  not  to  be  located 
by  the  sergeant-at-arms  of  the  senate.  Among  these  were 
Daniel  Drew,  John  S.  Eldridge,  president  of  the  Erie;  Jay 
Gould,  Jim  Fisk,  and  Homer  Ramsdell.  Incorporated  in 
the  testimony  were  copies  of  the  minutes  of  the  board  of 
directors  in  relation  to  the  matter  at  hand;  copies  of  the 
various  contracts  with  Drew.1  the  lease  of  the  Buffalo, 
Bradford  and  Pittsburgh  Railroad,  the  proceedings  which 
led  up  to  the  agreement  between  the  Erie  and  the  Boston, 
Hartford  and  Erie  Company,  to  guarantee  the  bonds  of  the 
latter '  and  the  statement  made  by  President  Eldridge  in 
justification  of  the  matter  that  had  led  to  the  investigation. 
The  testimony  of  J.  C.  Bancroft  Davis  was  the  leading  evi- 
dence adduced  by  the  committee  concerning  the  conduct  of 
Erie  finances.  The  only  evidence  offered  by  the  Erie  di- 
rectory was  a  printed  statement  verified  by  J.  C.  Bancroft 
Davis. 

As  a  result  of  the  committee's  labor,  two  reports  were  sub- 
mitted to  the  senate  on  April  ist,  a  majority  report,2  signed 
by  Senators  Pierce,  Bradley  and  Mattoon,  which  scored  the 
existing  Erie  management,  and  a  minority  report,3  signed 
by  Senators  Chapman  and  Humphrey,  which  sustained  the 
Erie  officials.  The  report,  signed  April  ist,  was  turned  in 
favor  of  the  Vanderbilt  interests  by  the  deciding  vote  of 
Senator  Mattoon.  This  worthy  Solon  gave  an  excellent 
though  disgusting  example  of  a  legislator  for  sale.  It  is 
difficult  to  explain  away  statements  of  the  following  char- 
acter, as  sworn  to  by  Daniel  Drew  before  the  senate  com- 
mittee of  investigation. 

Q.  "  Was  anything  said  in  the  conversation,  between  him 

1  Senate  Documents,  1868,  vol.  v,  No.  67,  p.  34  et  sea. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  1-7.  "  Ibid.,  pp.  8-13. 


282        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [282 

and  you,  in  regard  to  the  payment  of  any  money,  or  offer  of 
money,  on  either  side,  to  procure  the  passage  of  a  bill  in  the 
interest  of  the  Erie  Railway  Company?" 

A.  (By  Drew)  "  I  think  that  Mattoon  made  use  of  this  lan- 
guage to  me  at  one  time,  that  he,  or  no  man,  could  go  there 
[Albany]  and  live  on  what  their  pay  was.  I  said  to  him :  '  I 
don't  know ;  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  this  matter  at  all,  in 
any  way  or  shape,  and  will  not  have.'  He  intimated  as  if  he 
would  take  money  if  it  were  offered  to  him."  x 

Senator  Mattoon's  frequent  secret  visits  to  interview 
members  of  both  factions  before  the  committee  made  its 
final  report,  if  not  to  be  so  interpreted,  certainly  were  sug- 
gestive.2 He  had  given  his  formal  assent  on  March  31st 
to  a  measure  proposed  by  two  of  the  committee  which 
largely   exonerated   the  Drew   faction.8     The  other   two 

1  Senate  Documents,  1869,  vol.  v,  no.  52,  p.  109. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  10,  45-52. 

3  The  majority  report,  after  a  summary  of  the  facts  brought  forth, 
gave  a  scathing  rebuke  to  "  Mr.  Drew  and  his  confederates. — But  the 
want  of  legal  authority  is  the  least  objectionable  feature  of  these 
transactions. — These  men  occupied  positions  of  trust  and  confidence; 
they  had  entrusted  to  their  care  and  management  immense  pecuniary 
interests,  and  a  property  valued  at  nearly  one  hundred  millions  of 
dollars.  By  every  principle  of  law,  by  every  dictate  of  honor  and  good 
morals,  they  were  bound  to  exercise  their  best  skill  and  judgment — 
especially  were  they  under  the  most  sacred  obligations  to  be  faithful 
and  honest  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties." — Senate  Documents,  1868, 
vol.  v,  no.  67,  pp.  1-7,  7-13. 

In  sharp  contrast  with  the  above,  the  minority  report,  which  would 
have  been  the  majority  report  but  for  the  accident  of  Senator  Mat- 
toon's  change  of  sides  at  the  eleventh  hour,  declared  that  the  charges 
against  the  Erie  Directory  had  not  been  proved.  "  Even  though  the 
undersigned  might  not  interpret  the  law  as  going  to  the  extent  claimed 
by  the  Erie  Directors,  they  can  readily  see  that,  under  previous  con- 
structions of  that  law, — especially  after  legal  advice  to  that  effect, 
the  directors  might  well  have  believed, — that  they  had  a  right  to  pass 
such  a  resolution,  and  that  as  a  board  of  directors,  they  are  not 
chargeable  in  the  passage  of  that  resolution  with  a  wilful  violation 


283]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  283 

members  of  the  committee  read  to  him  on  the  same  day 
their  report  in  favor  of  the  Central.  Thus  Mattoon  held 
the  key  to  the  situation.  Whether  he  was  "  seen  "  by  both 
sides  is  a  matter  of  uncertainty.  However,  it  is  of  record 
that  on  March  30th,  on  his  visit  to  the  Erie  exiles  at  Jersey 
City,  he  told  them  that  "  the  majority  [of  the  committee] 
had  found  the  thing  was  right."  '  While  there  is  no  record 
of  Mattoon's  visiting  the  other  side  later,  the  thought  does 
not  seem  improbable  in  spite  of  his  sworn  denials,2  for  the 
day  following  his  visit  to  Jersey  City  he  signed  the  measure 
which  favored  Vanderbilt.8  This  sudden  change  was  popu- 
larly believed  to  have  been  caused  by  more  potent  encour- 
agement from  the  Vanderbilt  side.  In  his  testimony  before 
the  committee  of  investigation,  Jay  Gould  evidently  spoke 
the  truth  when  he  said,  "  I  was  perfectly  astounded  when  I 
heard  he  had  signed  the  other  "  [report].4  The  New  York 
Tribune  made  a  bold  charge  that  $20,000  had  been  stipu- 
lated for  the  change.8 

Parallel  with  the  course  of  the  investigation  committee, 
a  bill  had  been  introduced  into  the  assembly  which  legalized 
the  recent  issue  of  new  stock  on  the  part  of  the  Erie,  regu- 
lated the  power  of  issuing  convertible  bonds,  and  provided 
for  a  standard-gauge  connection  with  Chicago.     It  also 

of  the  law,  if  in  fact  there  was  a  violation,  a  point  upon  which  your 
committee  think  there  may  well  be  an  honest  difference  of  opinion. 
And  the  undersigned  believe  that  had  it  not  been  that  outside  parties 
were  interested  in  obtaining  control  of  the  said  Erie  Railway  Com- 
pany, no  question  would  ever  have  been  made  over  the  right  to  pass 
such  a  resolution,  or  issue  the  convertible  bonds  in  accordance  there- 
with." 

1  Senate  Documents,  1869,  vol.  v;  no.  52,  p.  31.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  45-52. 

•  It  is  said  that  he  could  not  keep  faith,  even  with  his  "  pals ",  the 
gamblers.     He  told  them  to  throw  for  Drew. 

4  Senate  Documents,  1869,  op.  cit.,  p.  33- 

■  See  New  York  Tribune,  April  1,  1868. 


284        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [284 

guaranteed  the  bonds  of  the  Boston,  Hartford  and  Erie, 
and  forbade  the  consolidation  of  the  Vanderbilt  and  Erie 
systems.1  This  bill  was  decisively  defeated  by  a  vote  of 
eighty-three  to  thirty-two 2  on  March  27th.  When  the 
news  of  this  adverse  decision  reached  Jersey  City,  it  was  at 
once  decided  that  their  interests  demanded  the  presence  of  a 
principal  at  Albany.  Senator  Mattoon  had  suggested  that 
he  "  thought  it  was  an  act  of  justice  to  the  committee  that 
some  representative  of  the  road  should  come  up  here  [Al- 
bany] and  explain  away  these  prejudices  "  3  [against  the 
Erie  bill].  It  was  decided  to  send  Jay  Gould.  The  Erie 
people  later  claimed  that  an  agreement  had  been  made  be- 
tween Mr.  Field  and  Sheriff  James  O'Brien  that  Gould 
should  be  present  on  April  4th,  the  day  on  which  an  attach- 
ment issued  by  Justice  Barnard  on  March  30th  against 
Gould  was  returnable.4  Gould  was  not  to  be  interfered 
with  by  the  law  before  that  time. 

It  was  given  out  that  Gould  had  gone  West  in  the  inter- 
ests of  the  eighty-seven  miles  of  standard-gauge  connection 
of  the  Erie  with  the  Michigan  Southern  and  Northern  In- 
diana Railroad  Company.  Gould  arrived  at  Albany  on 
Monday,  March  30th,  and  was  arrested  in  his  room  shortly 
after  one  o'clock  Tuesday  morning.5  He  at  once  tele- 
graphed word  of  his  predicament  to  his  counsel,  David 
Dudley  Field.6    Sheriff  James  O'Brien  immediately  took 

1  New  York  Herald,  Mar.  14,  1868.     Introduced  by  Mr.  Bristol. 

*  New  York  Times,  Mar.  28,  1868. 

'  Senate  Documents,  1869,  op.  cit.,  p.  31. 

*  Mott,  op.  cit.,  p.  152.  *  New  York  Sun,  April  1,  1868. 

*  Mott,  The  Story  of  the  Erie,  p.  152. 

Albany,  March  31,  1868. 
David  Dudley  Field,  New  York: 

I  am  just  arrested  by  the  Sheriff,  returnable  Saturday.  This  is  in 
violation  of  your  agreement  with  the  Sheriff.  Bail  $500,000.00.  Jay 
Gould.  —New  York  Sun,  April  1,  1868. 


285]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  285 

Gould  to  New  York  where  he  was  arraigned  on  April  4th 
before  Justice  Barnard.  Gould's  counsel,  including  ex- 
Judge  Pierrepont  and  James  T.  Brady,  mollified  the  wrath 
of  Justice  Barnard  and  Vanderbilt's  counsel.  An  adjourn- 
ment was  ordered  until  April  8th  with  an  additional  bail 
bond  required  for  security.  The  sheriff  was  immediately 
supplied  with  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  produce  Gould 
before  Judge  Barrett  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas. 
There  Judge  Barrett  transferred  Gould  to  the  custody  of  a 
special  officer  of  his  court,  one  James  A.  Oliver,  who  was  to 
hold  him  until  the  day  set  for  the  adjourned  hearing  before 
Justice  Barnard.  The  proceedings  in  the  habeas  corpus 
case  were  put  over  until  the  morning  of  April  7th.1  Gould 
immediately  found  that  certain  interests  required  his  pres- 
ence at  Albany.  The  officer,  who  had  been  specifically  in- 
structed by  the  court  never  to  let  Gould  out  of  his  sight, 
was  easily  persuaded  to  accompany  the  latter  to  Albany. 
On  the  train  Gould  became  suddenly  sick  and  kept  getting 
worse  until  his  arrival  at  Albany,  where  he  called  medical 
attention.2  Although  Gould  had  been  able  to  attend  to  his 
business  duties  at  the  capitol,  he  was  much  too  ill  to  think 
of  returning  to  New  York,  when  that  was  suggested  by  his 
guard,  in  order  to  appear  before  Judge  Barrett  on  April 
ioth.3 

On  the  advice  of  his  counsel,  Gould  locked  himself  in  his 
room,  refusing  to  see  Oliver,  his  guard,  who  perforce,  had 

1  Mott,  op.  cit.,  p.  154.     New  York  Herald,  April  9,  10,  1868. 

"  The  physician  called  was  Dr.  Julian  T.  Williams,  a  former  member 
of  the  Assembly  from  Chautauqua  County.  Doubtless,  one  who  could 
be  trusted  to  diagnose  and  properly  prescribe  for  a  virulent  case  of 
un  mal  de  la  politique. 

1  Judge  Barrett  had  put  the  hearing  over  another  three  days,  on 
hearing  from  Oliver  by  telegraph,  that  Gould  was  ill  in  bed.  This  was 
the  first  intimation  that  the  judge  had  that  Gould  was  out  of  his 
jurisdiction. 


286        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [286 

to  return  emptyhanded  to  New  York.  Judge  Barrett,  in 
great  anger,  ordered  Mr.  Gould  and  Hamilton  Harris,  the 
former's  counsel,  to  appear  before  him  on  the  14th.  Pro- 
ceedings on  that  date  found  no  Jay  Gould  present,  but  an 
affidavit  which  denied  Oliver's  declarations  and  which  in- 
sisted that  the  former's  state  of  health  did  not  permit.1 
The  court  then  postponed  action  in  Gould's  case  until  April 
18th. 

An  incident  occurred  at  this  time  which  threatened  to  dis- 
turb the  conscience  and  injure  the  good  name  of  the  legis- 
lature. On  April  1st,  just  after  the  ratification  of  the  rail- 
road committee's  report  adverse  to  the  bill  which  legalized 
the  acts  of  the  directors  of  the  Erie  Railroad  Company,  a 
quiet,  white-haired  gentleman  arose  in  his  seat  in  the  as- 
sembly, and  to  the  intense  astonishment  of  all  offered  the 
following  charges :  "  that  the  report  of  the  Erie  Railroad 
bill  was  bought  " ;  "  that  a  portion  of  the  vote  on  this  floor, 
in  adopting  the  said  report,  was  bought " ;  and  "  that  the 
members  of  this  house  were  engaged  in  buying  their  fellow 
members  ".2  This  gentleman,  who  had  arisen  to  a  question 
of  privilege,  was  Assemblyman  Elijah  M.  K.  Glenn,  of 
Wayne  County.  These  charges  were  supplemented  with 
affidavits.  In  order  to  quash  all  further  reflections  upon 
the  legislature's  purity,  upon  motion  of  Mr.  Glenn,  the 
speaker  immediately  appointed  a  committee  of  five  to  probe 
the  matter.8    The  press  of  the  State,  which  had  been  hurl- 

1  Gould  agreed  that  he  locked  Oliver  from  his  room  to  prevent  the 
latter's  learning  of  the  Erie  movements  which,  Gould  claimed,  it  was 
his  practice  to  narrate  to  Senators  William  M.  Tweed  and  Thomas  J. 
Creamer,  of  the  opposing  side.  Cf.  New  York  Herald,  April  15,  1868; 
New  York  Times,  April  15,  1868. 

8  New  York  Herald,  April  2,  1868;  New  York  Sun,  April  2,  1868. 

•  Those  appointed  were:  Augustus  G.  S.  Allis,  of  Onondaga  County; 
James  R.  Button,  of  Cattaraugus  County;  James  D.  Lasher,  of 
Oswego  County ;  Lewis  P.  Dayton,  of  Erie  County,  and  Alexander 
Frear,  of  New  York  County. 


287]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  287 

ing  charges  of  gross  venality  in  connection  with  the  Erie 
measures,  now  stood  solicitiously  by  to  aid  in  its  sad  duty. 
Mr.  Glenn  obtained  a  leave  of  absence  for  a  week.  He 
returned  on  April  9th,  and,  still  further,  startled  his  col- 
leagues by  formally  charging  that  Assemblyman  Alexander 
Frear  *  had  been  the  person  who  attempted  to  influence  him, 
with  $500,  on  March  27th,  for  his  vote  on  the  Erie  matter. 
Mr.  Glenn  demanded  that  Mr.  Frear  be  relieved  from  ser- 
vice on  the  committee.2  Mr.  Frear  at  once  offered  his  resig- 
nation as  one  of  the  committee,  with  a  great  show  of  in- 
jured dignity  and  demanded  an  investigation.3  The  matter 
was  placed  in  the  charge  of  the  committee  itself  to  inves- 
tigate before  any  action  on  the  resignation  should  be  taken. 

The  action  of  the  committee  was  immediate.  It  met  on 
Thursday  morning,  April  9th,  to  receive  the  evidence  of 
Mr.  Glenn,  and  again,  on  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day. 
At  the  second  session,  Mr.  Glenn  failed  to  appear  in  answer 
to  the  subpoena,  stating  that  he  was  ill,  and,  that  he  had 
given  at  the  morning  session  all  the  facts  within  his  knowl- 
edge.4 The  others  examined  at  the  second  session  were 
Mark  M.  Lewis,  of  Albany,  who  by  vocation  was  an  op- 
tician, by  avocation,  a  lobbyist;  Alexander  Frear,  assem- 
blyman from  New  York  City;  Henry  Ray,  assemblyman 
from  Ontario  County;  Luke  Ranney,  assemblyman  from 
Onondaga  County,  and  Augustus  A.  Brush,  assemblyman 
from  Dutchess  County. 

The  testimony  of  Mr.  Glenn  proved  to  be  ineffective  and 
weak  in  places.  He  swore  that  on  the  morning  of  March 
27th,  while  conversing  with  Hon.   Charles  H.  Weed,  of 

1  A  New  York  City  broker.     New  York  Herald,  April  10,  1868. 

*  Assembly  Documents,  1868,  vol.  x,  no.  145,  p.  I. 

•  Cf.,  Papers. 

4  Assembly  Documents,   1868,  vol.  x,  no.   145,  p.   17.    Testimony  of 
Mr.  Gleason  who  explained  Glenn's  absence  to  Mr.  Allis,  the  chairman. 


288        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [28S 

Cayuga,  and  Hon.  Henry  Ray,  of  Ontario,  they  had  vol- 
unteered the  statement  that  M  there  was  money  afloat ". 
Glenn  replied,  "  Is  it  possible,  how  did  you  find  out?'' 
"  Why,"  said  one  of  them,  "  it  is  easy  enough  to  find  out. 
Go  in  the  cloakroom,  you  can  find  out.  I've  seen  you  talk- 
ing to  the  man."  "  I  went  out  and  fell  into  conversation 
with  him  [Lewis]  about  spectacles,  and  about  his  business, 
and  led  him  on."  l  It  appeared  that  Mr.  Lewis  said  nothing 
to  Glenn  in  regard  to  money.  Thereupon  Mr.  Glenn  re- 
turned to  the  assembly  chamber  and  reported  the  result  to 
Mr.  Ray,  who  shortly  notified  the  former  that  Lewis  was 
ready  to  talk  with  him.     Mr.  Glenn  then  said : 

I  went  out  again,  and  just  as  I  swung  the  door  square  open 
and  passed  into  the  cloak  room,  Lewis  took  hold  of  my  coat 
and  hauled  me  to  one  side  and  said,  '  I  want  to  talk  to  you.' 
We  got  up  close  to  the  wall,  and  says  he,  '  I  don't  want  you 
to  be  offended.'  '  Oh,  no,'  said  I.  .  .  .  He  said  the  railroad 
report  was  to  be  against  the  Erie  road,  and,  said  he,  .  .  .  'If 
you  vote  for  it  you  shall  have  $500.'  .  .  .  '  If  you  will  go 
back  to  your  seat.  Brush  will  come  to  see  you.' 2 

Mr.  Glenn  returned  to  his  seat,  but  after  a  considerable 
wait  he  returned  to  the  lobby  and  informed  Mr.  Lewis  that 
Mr.  Brush  had  not  come  to  him.  Lewis  told  him  to  go  to 
Mr.  Frear,  to  which  Mr.  Glenn  retorted,  "  I  ain't  going  to 
any  man."  Thereupon,  Lewis  sent  in  for  Mr.  Frear,  who 
came  out  presently  and  said  to  Mr.  Glenn,  "  What  this  man 
says,"  nodding  his  head  to  Lewis,  "  is  all  right;  we  want  the 

1  Assembly  Documents,  1868,  op.  cit.,  p.  5. 

2  Mr.  Glenn  stated  in  relation  to  Mr.  Brush  that  "  the  moment 
I  tried  to  catch  his  eye,  I  saw  there  was  guilt  there.  All  winter 
long  he  had  a  clear,  frank,  open  face,  but  the  moment  I  would  catch 
his  eye  he  would  dodge  off  from  me."  Assembly  Documents,  1868, 
vol.  x.  no.  145,  p.  6. 


289]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  289 

Erie  Railroad  report  adopted,  and  if  you  will  vote  for  it, 
you  shall  have  what  this  man  says."  '  It  appears  that  Mr. 
F  rear's  name  was  introduced  in  the  matter  for  the  first  time 
at  this  juncture.  The  evidence  further  shows  that  Mr. 
Frear's  presence  in  the  lobby  was  requested  several  times 
before  he  left  his  seat2 

It  is  at  this  point  that  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Glenn  ap- 
pears to  contradict  the  sworn  statements  of  Mr.  Frear  and 
Mr.  Lewis.  The  former  positively  swore  that  Glenn  asked 
him  if  he  would  obtain  five  hundred  dollars  in  return  for  a 
vote  sustaining  the  report  of  the  committee.  Mr.  Frear, 
according  to  his  statement,  replied :  "  I  told  him  no ;  that  I 
was  very  anxious  to  have  the  report  of  the  committee  sus- 
tained, and  as  far  as  I  was  concerned  I  did  not  think  that 
this  legislature  could  afford  to  pass  a  bill  of  that  kind,  re- 
ferring to  the  Erie  bill  ".3  Mr.  Glenn  then  began  to  state 
that  he  had  had  a  talk  with  Mr.  Lewis,  whereupon  Mr. 
Frear  said  that  he  left  Glenn,  saying,  "  Then  go  and  talk 
with  Mr.  Lewis."  4 

Mark  M.  Lewis,  in  his  testimony,  stated  that  he  did  not 
offer  money  to  Mr.  Glenn,  that  he  had  received  no  authority 
from  any  person  or  source,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  offer 
to  pay  money  to  any  person  for  his  vote  on  the  Erie  bill.*' 
He  claimed  to  have  merely  stated  rumors  which  had  come 
to  his  ears,  namely,  that  the  Erie  side  were  offering  five 
hundred  dollars  down  and  a  like  amount  contingent;  also, 
that  the  other  side  were  offering  five  hundred  dollars.  In 
reply,  Mr.  Glenn  was  charged  by  Lewis  with  these  words, 
"  If  there  is  anything  in  it,  I  want  to  get  my  share." 


1  Assembly  Documents,  op.  cit.,  p.  6.  *  Ibid.,  p.  13. 

8  Ibid.,  op.  cit.,  p.  6  et  seq. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  14. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  8  et  seq. 


290        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [290 

In  their  evidence,  both  Mr.  Frear  and  Mr.  Lewis  swore 
that  they  were  not  personally  acquainted  with  each  other, 
and  that  they  had  never  held  a  conversation  upon  the  Erie 
bill  or  any  other  matter.1  When  asked  how  he  had  hap- 
pened to  give  Mr.  Frear's  name  to  Mr.  Glenn,  Lewis  re- 
plied that  he  had  given  the  names  as  they  occurred  to  him. 
However,  following  that  remark,  Lewis  admitted  a  weight- 
ier reason.  It  seems  that  Mr.  Lewis  was  interested  in  se- 
curing favorable  action  upon  the  health  bill  of  the  town  of 
Watervliet.  In  order  to  advance  the  interests  of  his  own 
measure,  Lewis  sought  to  do  Frear  a  favor.  The  former 
being  aware  that  the  latter  was  against  the  Erie  measure, 
it  occurred  to  him  that  Frear  would  consider  it  a  favor  for 
a  member  to  vote  against  it.  Mr.  Lewis  had  inferred  that 
Frear  was  against  the  Watervliet  health  bill,  hence,  he  was 
desirous  of  placing  himself  in  a  position  where  he  could 
possibly  ask  a  return  favor  of  Mr.  Frear.2 

The  evidence  offered  by  Assemblymen  Ray  and  Ranney 
tended  to  show  that  the  sending  of  Mr.  Glenn  to  the  cloak 
room  was  a  joke,  which  resulted  from  a  jest  at  the  break- 
fast table.  Mr.  Henry  Ray  and  Mr.  Luke  Ranney  boarded 
at  the  same  house  with  Mr.  Glenn.  It  appeared  that  at  the 
breakfast  table  on  the  day  on  which  Mr.  Glenn  claimed  that 
the  attempt  at  bribery  was  made,  the  three  gentlemen  above 
mentioned  had  laughed  and  joked  over  the  buying  of  votes. 
Mr.  Ray  testified  that  Glenn  had  said  that  "  he  didn't  know 
but  what  he  would  like  to  take  a  look  at  the  elephant  ",3 
whereupon  Ray  replied,  "If  you  want  to  find  out  what 
there  is  of  it,  you  can  go  and  talk  with  the  Dutchman  " 
[Mr.  Lewis].  Mr.  Ray  testified  that  "  nothing  serious  was 
intended  in  this  conversation."     In  reply  to  a  direct  ques- 

1  Assembly  Documents,  vol.  x,  no.  145,  p.  8  et  seq. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  12.  •  Ibid.,  p.  15. 


291]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  291 

tion  whether  he  had  received  any  money  for  his  vote  on  the 
Erie  bill,  Mr.  Ray  gave  an  illuminating  reply  as  to  the  legis- 
lature's sensitiveness  on  the  question  of  bribery. 

No,  sir;  after  the  session  of  the  House,  on  the  27th,  myself, 
Mr.  Glenn  and  others,  both  in  the  chamber  and  at  the  house, 
were  laughing  about  this  matter;  and  Mr.  Glenn  said  [as  we 
understood  in  a  joke]  that  he  had  lost  $500  that  day  which 
he  might  have  got  .  .  .  more  than  he  had  ever  lost  before  in 
one  day;  we  often  joke  about  money  being  lost  in  that  way.1 

The  evidence  of  Mr.  Ranney  was  in  point  with  that  of 
Mr.  Ray.2  Mr.  Augustus  Brush,  whose  name  became  in- 
volved in  Glenn's  testimony,  denied  having  any  knowledge 
of  money  being  paid  to  anyone  to  influence  the  vote  on  the 
Erie  matter. 8 

Tn  face  of  the  evidence  taken  there  is  little  doubt  that 
the  commitee  were  justified  in  their  recommendation  "that 
Mr.  Frear's  request  to  be  excused  from  serving  on  the  in- 
vestigating committee  be  denied,"  and  that  the  charges 
made  by  Mr.  Glenn  against  Mr.  Frear  were  unjustified. 
Did  they  not  have  the  testimony  of  five  men,  whose  word 
had  never  been  impeached,  against  that  of  one,  whose  testi- 
mony was  presented  in  an  unconvincing  form?  Neverthe- 
less, it  is  difficult  to  reconcile  the  presence  of  Jay  Gould  ac- 
companied by  his  host  of  lobbyists  at  Albany,  and  his 
sworn  statements  of  the  amount  of  money  he  spent  at  Al- 
bany for  various  purposes  to  advance  his  bill,  with  an  un- 
corrupted  legislature.  Mr.  Glenn  may  or  may  not  have 
purposely  been  made  a  tool  to  clear  the  legislature  of  stain ; 
Mr.  Frear  may  have  been  spotless ;  yet  the  fact  remains  that 
the  Erie  and  Vanderbilt  interests  were  at  Albany,  supplied 
with  large  sums  of  money,  both  in  deadly  grapple  over  the 

1  Assembly  Documents,  1868,  op.  cit.,  p.  15. 

'  Ibid.,  pp.  15-16.  %Ibid.,  pp.  16-17. 


292        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [292 

Erie  measure;  in  the  senate  was  William  M.  Tweed,  who, 
as  it  has  since  been  proven,  was  extending  his  corrupt 
power  in  the  legislature  and  over  all  the  State.  In  view  of 
these  facts,  the  question  cannot  fail  to  arise  whether  or 
not  the  legislature  was  corrupted  in  this  particular  case.1 
The  only  authoritative  knowledge  left  us  on  which  to  base 
an  opinion  is  the  testimony  of  the  committee  to  investigate 
Mr.  Glenn's  charges.  This  committee  completely  exoner- 
ated the  legislature.    We  leave  the  question. 

Now  that  the  legislature  had  been  purged,  few  would 
dare  to  repeat  Mr.  Glenn's  attempt,  hence  the  season  was 
ripe  for  Gould's  bounteous  generosity.  The  reports  which 
circulated  concerning  the  size  of  bribes  which  were  dealt 
in  through  this  legislative  campaign  were  multifarious. 
The  amounts  involved  were  stated  to  range  from  $5,000  to 
$  1 00,000. 2 

Although  the  situation  since  Gould's  arrival  at  Albany 
appeared  to  favor  the  Erie,  still  the  defeat  of  the  assembly 
bill,  and  the  fact  that  the  senate  committee  had  reported 
adversely,  argued  for  the  supremacy  of  Vanderbilt.  A 
factor  which  no  doubt  tended  to  strengthen  the  Erie  forces 
at  this  time  was  the  awaking  of  public  opinion  to  the  danger 
of  a  consolidation  of  two  great  systems  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Vanderbilt.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  Vanderbilt  influ- 
ence waned.     A  bill 3  which  legalized  the  acts  of  the  Erie 

1  Townsend,  New  York  in  Bondage  (New  York,  1901),  pp.  8-17.  Mr. 
Townsend  in  his  chapter  on  the  Erie  War  makes  a  special  study  of  the 
relations  between  the  Erie  Railroad  and  the  Tweed  Ring. 

"New  York  Times,  April  2,  14,  1868;  New  York  Tribune,  April  1, 
1868;  New  York  Herald,  Mar.  10,  14,  1868;  May  1,  1868. 

■  Cf.,  New  York  Sun,  April  14,  1868.  Adams,  A  Chapter  of  Erie, 
p.  54.  To  all  intents  and  purposes  it  legalized  the  recent  issue  of 
bonds  but  penalized  any  other  use  of  the  proceeds  of  these  bonds,  than 
for    the    completion,    furthering    and    operation    of    the    road.     The 


293]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  293 

directory  was  introduced  in  the  senate  on  April  13th  and 
passed  after  a  close  debate  on  the  18th.1  Senator  Mattoon, 
for  unknown  reasons,  was  found  voting  with  the  majority. 
The  scene  of  battle  now  turned  to  the  assembly.  At  first, 
the  scent  of  the  death  struggle  caused  a  great  influx  of 
political  vultures,  but  they  were  doomed  to  go  unsatisfied. 
Shortly  the  rumor  gained  credence  that  Vanderbilt  had 
withdrawn.  This  proved  true.  The  bill  was  passed  by  the 
assembly  on  April  20th  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  one 
to  six.2  To  punish  Vanderbilt  for  failing  to  continue  the 
fight,  thus  stopping  a  source  of  profit,  the  disappointed 
members  of  the  assembly  passed  several  measures  calcu- 
lated to  injure  him.  Among  these  were  a  pro  rata  freight 
bill,8  and  a  through  ticket  bill,  where  there  were  competing 
lines.4 

The  last  stand  was  made  in  the  executive  chamber  at  Al- 
bany before  the  bill  received  the  Governor's  signature. 
There,  on  April  21st,  the  Vanderbilt  counsel  made  their 
closing  argument  as  to  why  the  bill  should  be  vetoed.  How- 
ever, it  availed  them  nought.  Governor  Fenton  rewarded 
the  Erie  labors  with  his  signature.  The  papers  °  were  rife 
with  charges  that  the  Governor's  signature  had  been  bought. 

guarantee  of  bonds  issued  by  connecting  roads  was  legalized,  all  con- 
solidation or  connection  and  the  use  of  the  same  officers  or  directors, 
between  the  Erie  and  the  Vanderbilt  lines  was  forbidden. 

1  17  to  12.  New  York  Sun,  April  14,  1868;  New  York  Herald,  April 
19,  1868. 

*  Mott,  The  Story  of  Erie,  p.  154.  The  same  bill  had  been  defeated 
before  83  to  32. 

•  New  York  Herald,  April  19,  20,  1868. 

4  New  York  Herald,  April  21,  29,  1868.  Also,  an  enabling  act  was 
passed  April  21,  1868,  for  the  West  Side  R.  R.  between  New  York  and 
Albany  to  rival  the  Central. 

6  See  papers.  New  York  Herald,  April  21-30.  1868 ;  New  York 
Times,  April  20-May  8,  1868;  New  York  Sun,  April  21,  1868. 


294        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [294 

Although  papers  of  his  own  party  named  the  sum  sup- 
posedly paid,  the  evidence  adduced  by  Senator  Hale's  in- 
vestigation committee  does  not  bear  this  out.1 

While  the  angry  clash  of  counsel  in  the  courts  lasted 
nearly  to  June,  the  defeat  of  the  Vanderbilt  faction  in  the 
legislature  brought  on  an  era  of  negotiation.  The  press 
all  through  the  spring  months  provided  the  curious  public 
with  new  notes  on  the  science  of  high  finance.  So  satiated 
did  the  public  become  that  it  grew  indifferent  to  new  dis- 
closures of  scandal.2  Early  in  April,  Drew  afforded  him- 
self the  opportunity  offered  by  Sabbath  immunity  from  ar- 
rest, to  cross  the  Hudson.  Shortly  peace  conferences  were 
arranged  between  Vanderbilt  and  Drew.  The  latter  had 
become  irritated  and  oppressed  by  the  long  drawn-out  pub- 
licity of  the  Erie  war.  He  had  no  sanctity  of  personal  or 
private  business,  was  distrusted  by  his  associates,  and  was 
fain  to  return  to  the  comforts  of  his  home.  Vanderbilt, 
on  the  other  hand,  appreciated  the  fact  that  public  senti- 
ment against  him  was  too  strong  to  be  downed.  Hence,  the 
settlement  which  ended  the  Erie  war  may  not  appear  so 
strange. 

On  April  25th,  the  Erie  forces  evacuated  their  strong- 
hold in  Jersey  City.  This  was  not  done  until  a  satisfactory 
peace  had  been  arranged,  subsequent  to  the  frequent 
stealthy,  then  open,  visits  of  Mr.  Drew  to  Wall  Street.  The 
inside  facts  of  the  settlement  have  never  come  to  light. 
When  the  Albany  matters  had  received  final  settlement,  the 
plan  of  compromise,  which  was  the  result  of  the  secret  con- 
ferences between  Vanderbilt  and  Drew,  had  been  outlined. 
The  four  parties  to  the  settlement  and  their  desires,  in  the 
case  of  three,  were  plain.    Mr.  Drew  was  anxious  to  square 

1  See  Doc.  Sen.,  1869,  no.  52,  pp.  146-148,  I5I-55- 

1  Adams,  op.  cit.,  p.  56 ;  New  York  Herald,  April  26,  1868. 


295 J  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  295 

his  account  as  treasurer,  while  Vanderbilt  wished  to  unload 
his  great  burden  of  Erie  stock  and  to  protect  his  puppets, 
Messrs.  Work  and  Schell,  under  whose  names  the  litiga- 
tion had  been  carried  on.  The  Boston  interests  were  es- 
pecially desirous  to  be  lightened  of  the  New  York  and  Erie 
Railway,  so  as  to  be  able  the  sooner  to  devote  their  hard- 
won  spoils  to  the  development  of  the  New  England  enter- 
prise.1 One  party  only  was  unprovided  for,  "  those 
splendid  pirates,  Jay  Gould  and  '  Jim  '  Fisk."  * 

Gould's  reasons  for  not  desiring  to  compromise  with 
Vanderbilt,  while  unknown,  were  none  the  less  strong. 
Gould's  other  self,  Fisk,  coincided  with  Gould.  As  a  re- 
sult an  attempt  was  made  to  effect  a  compromise  without 
their  knowledge.  A  secret  meeting,  arranged  to  be  held  at 
ex-Judge  Pierrepont's  on  an  early  June  evening,'  between 
the  Erie  board  of  directors  and  counsel  and  Vanderbilt  and 
counsel,  was  broken  in  upon  by  Gould  and  Fisk.  After 
fruitless  protests  on  the  part  of  the  intruders,  they  were 
forced  to  acquiesce  in  a  settlement  from  which  they  ob- 
tained nothing  but  fuel  to  kindle  further  trouble.  Mr. 
Fisk,  in  his  sworn  testimony,  declared  that  Gould  and  he 
protested  to  the  last,  denouncing  the  compromise  in  the 
most  scathing  terms.  His  prediction  that  it  would  pro- 
duce future  trouble,  was  well  borne  out  by  subsequent 
events. 

All  the  charges  against  the  Erie  were  dismissed  on 
the     motion     of     the     Central's     attorney.     Charles     A. 

1  Adams,  op.  cit.,  p.  58. 

"  Tarbell.  The  History  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company  (New  York, 
1904).  pp.  1-33- 

*  Mott,  op.  cit.,  p.  155.  The  exact  date  is  unknown.  At  the  time 
of  the  meeting,  President  Eldridge  had  an  appointment  with  Gould 
and  Fisk  at  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel.  When  he  failed  to  appear, 
they  immediately  gave  credence  to  rumors  of  a  secret  meeting  and 
went  direct  to  Pierrepont's  house. 


296        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [296 

Rapallo.  The  formal  announcement  of  the  final  set- 
tlement was  made  on  July  2nd.  The  settlement  in- 
cluded a  cash  subsidy  outright  of  $1,000,000  to  Com- 
modore Vanderbilt,  in  return  for  which  the  Erie  was 
to  have  the  privilege  of  purchasing  from  Vanderbilt  fifty 
thousand  shares  of  Erie  at  seventy  on  demand  within  four 
months.  Vanderbilt  was  also  to  be  lightened  immediately 
of  fifty  thousand  shares  of  Erie  stock  at  seventy,  the  stip- 
ulation being  $2,500,000  in  cash  and  guaranteed  Boston, 
Hartford  and  Erie  bonds  at  eighty  to  the  amount  of  $1,- 
250,000.  Further,  Vanderbilt  was  permitted  to  hold  two 
seats  in  the  Erie  board.  Also,  it  was  agreed  that  all  pend- 
ing suits  be  dismissed.  To  heal  the  offended  feelings  of 
Messrs.  Work  and  Schell  and  to  recoup  them  for  their 
losses,  they  severally  received  $429,250  in  cash.  To  Daniel 
Drew  all  the  fruits  of  his  exploitation  were  given,  with  the 
exception  that  it  was  provided  that  he  should  pay  into  the 
Erie  treasury  $540,000  with  interest,  to  balance  his  account 
with  the  Erie  Company.  The  Boston  interests,  under  the 
leadership  of  President  Eldridge,  fared  well.  The  agree- 
ment called  for  the  purchase  of  $5,000,000  Boston,  Hart- 
ford and  Erie  bonds  for  $4,000,000  of  Erie  acceptances. 
In  all,  the  Erie  treasury,  which  had  been  temporarily  well 
filled,  was  depleted  to  the  extent  of  $9,000,000  in  cash  to 
settle  this  matter  of  the  disposition  of  trust  property.  To 
requite  the  outraged  feelings  of  Jay  Gould  and  Jim  Fisk, 
the  settlement  provided  that  they  should  have  the  Erie  Rail- 
road. In  its  existent  condition,  there  is  small  wonder  that 
they  were  dissatisfied  with  their  share.  Yet,  it  was  destined 
to  be  the  royal  highway  to  many  fortunes  in  their  skillful, 
though  unscrupulous  hands.1 

The  curtain  dropped  on  the  Erie  litigation  of  1868,  when 

1  See  An  Erie  Raid,  in  Adams,   Chapters  of  Erie,   also  pt.  iii  in 
A  Chapter  of  Erie,  Adams,  Chapters  of  Erie. 


297]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  297 

on  June  30th,  Directors  Davis,  Lane,  Skidmore,  Diven, 
Thompson  and  Eldridge  were  fined  ten  dollars  by  the  much- 
abused  Mr.  Justice  Barnard,  for  technical  contempt.1  The 
great  malefactors,  Messrs.  Drew,  Gould,  and  Fisk  received 
no  punishment;  evidently  Justice  Barnard  considered  their 
crimes  too  grave  for  treatment.2  Mr.  Vanderbilt  appar- 
ently turned  his  glance  from  the  Erie,  though  it  must  have 
been  with  a  wistful  look.  For  the  time  being  Daniel  Drew 
made  himself  a  center  of  attraction  in  Wall  Street  by  as- 
suming the  role  of  looker-on. 

The  scope  of  this  study  does  not  permit  a  further  devel- 
opment of  the  Erie  story.  Suffice  to  state,  that  Messrs. 
Gould  and  Fisk,  freed  from  the  timid  vacillation  of  Drew, 
soon  made  the  Erie  fill  their  coffers  a  hundred  fold.  Their 
methods  were  similar  to  those  of  their  master :  the  unscru- 
pulous use  of  trust  funds,  shady  Wall  Street  corners,  a 
suitable  manipulation  of  the  legislature,  a  vast  tangle  of 
injunctions  and  suits  in  the  various  city  and  country  courts. 
The  names  of  Peter  B.  Sweeny  and  William  M.  Tweed, 
"  remorseless,  vulgar,  public  robbers  ",8  shortly  appeared 
upon  the  Erie  board  of  directors,  thus  assuring  the  Erie 
ring  of  the  support  of  the  Tweed  ring.  An  even  exchange 
of  legislative  votes  for  money  is  no  robbery ;  hence  the  re- 
spective parties  were  satisfied.  Gould  was  permitted, 
through  the  favor  of  Tweed,  to  have  the  Erie  directors' 
bill  passed,  which  enabled  him  to  keep  his  hold  upon  the 
Erie  board  for  five  years,  by  the  yearly  retiring  of  only  one- 

1  Mott,  The  Story  of  Erie,  p.  156;  New  York  Times,  July  1,  1868; 
New  York  Sun,  July  1,  1868. 

•On  April  21,  1868,  Gould  was  exonerated  by  Justice  Barnard  of 
any  intention  to  commit  contempt  of  court.  New  York  Times,  May 
8,  1868;  New  York  Herald,  May  21,  1868. 

•  Livingston,  The  Erie  Railway:  Its  History  and  Management,  p.  10. 
New  York  and  Erie  Railroad — Pamphlets. 


298        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [298 

fifth  of  the  board.  There  is  little  doubt  that  Wall  Street  has 
seen,  since  the  time  of  Drew  and  Gould,  many  transactions 
of  high  finance  which  would  blush  with  the  light  of  day, 
yet,  it  would  be  hard  to  picture  a  more  bare- faced  case 
of  financial  or  legislative  debauchery.  That  such  a  con- 
dition could  exist,  with  the  perpetrators  walking  erect 
in  public,  even  envied  in  many  quarters,  speaks  for  itself 
as  to  the  state  of  public  conscience  of  that  period.  How- 
ever, there  was  shortly  an  awakening.  Within  the  past 
decade,  although  the  muckraker  has  ceased  to  be  popular, 
the  plane  of  public  opinion  and  conscience  is  so  much  higher 
than  that  of  five  decades  previous,  we  believe  that  the 
methods  of  Gould  would  find  no  harborage  to-day. 

The  aim  in  outlining  this  deplorable  yet  nevertheless  in- 
teresting period  of  legislative,  judicial  and  financial  degen- 
eracy has  been  to  suggest  the  peculiar  conditions  in  New 
York  State  which  placed  the  Democrats  in  control  of  the 
State  administration  in  1868.  That  there  can  be  no  doubt 
of  the  corruption  rampant  in  the  legislature  of  1868  is  made 
manifest  by  the  report  of  Senator  Hale's  committee,  which 
while  it  found  no  proof  of  the  actual  bribery  of  any  sen- 
ator, yet  found  that  large  sums  of  money  had  been  ex- 
pended for  corrupt  purposes  by  parties  interested  in  the  rail- 
road legislation  of  1868.  This  committee,  composed  of 
Senators  M.  Hale,  Francis  S.  Thayer,  and  Asher  P.  Nich- 
ols, was  appointed  on  April  10,  1868.1  and  sat  at  various 
times  during  the  following  recess  and  the  next  regular  ses- 
sion. Its  report  was  submitted  eleven  months  later,  March 
10,  1869. 

Horace  Greeley  was  summoned  before  the  committee  to 
state  his  grounds  for  the  statement  that  over  $100,000 
had  been  expended  by  both  sides  on  the  Erie  matter.    Gree- 

1  Senate  Documents,  1869,  vol.  v,  no.  52,  p.  1  et  seq. 


299 J  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  299 

ley  named  the  Hon.  Thomas  C.  Fields  as  his  informant. 
Among  the  others  examined  by  the  committee  were:  Jay 
Gould,  Cornelius  Vanderbilt,  Jr.,  Thomas  G.  Alvord.  Ab- 
ner  C.  Mattoon,  Asahel  H.  Cole,  Lewis  F.  Payne,  Daniel 
Drew,  John  H.  Mattoon,  George  Bliss,  Jr.,  Alexander  S. 
Diven,  Luther  Caldwell,  James  Fisk,  Jr.,  and  Hamilton 
Harris. 

Mr.  Drew  testified  that  while  treasurer  of  the  Erie,  until 
July,  1868.  Mr.  Eldridge,  the  president  of  the  road,  drew 
$500,000  from  the  treasury  before  the  session  of  the  legis- 
lature, ostensibly  for  purposes  of  litigation.1  This  was 
charged  to  Mr.  Eldridge  personally  and  had  not  been  ac- 
counted for  when  Drew  had  retired  from  office.  The  com- 
mittee found  that  large  amounts  of  money  had  been  paid 
for  various  purposes.  Jay  Gould  had  paid  $5,000  to  Lewis 
F.  Payne  and  $2,000  to  some  person,  "  he  thinks  his  name 
was  William  King  ",2  to  be  given  to  Mr.  D.  D.  S.  Brown, 
of  Rochester.  In  addition,  Gould  testified  that  he  paid 
somewhere  from  $25,000  to  $50,000.  not  including  pay- 
ment by  draft,  to  counsel  and  agents.  Mr.  Thompson  paid 
$5,000  to  Payne  and  close  to  $60,000  to  Luther  Caldwell, 
which  had  been  refunded  to  him  by  the  Erie  Company.* 
The  committee  felt  sure  that  it  knew  where  all  this  money 
came  from,  but  Mr.  Eldridge,  being  a  resident  of  another 
State  and  having  failed  to  accept  its  invitation  to  testify, 
the  committee  could  not  force  him.  The  committee,  while 
not  knowing  exactly  the  use  made  of  this  money,  assumed 
that  it  had  been  expended  for  some  purpose  with  intent  to 
influence  legislation  unlawfully.4 

Some  typical  instances  of  the  manner  in  which  the  funds 

1  Senate  Documents,  op.  cit.,  p.  3. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  no.  3  Ibid.,  pp.  140-1. 

'Ibid.,  p.  ?. 


3oo        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [300 

were  disposed  of  will  be  interesting.  For  example,  Lewis 
F.  Payne,  a  harbor  master  in  New  York  on  a  $350  per 
month  salary,  a  man  who  had  never  been  employed  by  any 
railroad,  with  neither  profession  nor  any  extensive  influ- 
ence, was  given  $5,000  by  Mr.  Thompson 1  and  later 
$5,000  by  Mr.  Gould  "  to  smooth  him  over  ",  Gould  not 
having  heard  of  Thompson's  payment.  In  return  for  this 
$10,000  it  appears  that  Mr.  Payne  spent  a  few  days  at  Al- 
bany advocating  the  Erie  bill. 

The  case  of  Luther  Caldwell  is  still  more  peculiar.  From 
the  testimony  of  Horace  Greeley,  Mr.  A.  N.  Cole  and  Sen- 
ator Russell  F.  Hicks,  it  appears  that 

the  party  known  as  the  Vanderbilt  party,  or  the  opposition  to 
the  bill,  had  made  a  proposition  to  him  [Caldwell]  to  have 
him  leave  Albany,  and  that  he  [Caldwell]  had  informed  Mr. 
Gould  of  the  proposition  they  had  made  him,  and  that  he  told 
Mr.  Gould  he  was  going  away ;  and  they  [the  Vanderbilt  party] 
proposed  to  give  him  $70,000  if  he  would  leave ;  that  they  did 
so,  and  he  went  away;  that  he  had  before  received  from  the 
Erie  side  a  very  liberal  compensation  for  his  services  .  .  . 
which  was  paid  him  in  all  kinds  of  bills.2 

General  Diven,  of  the  Erie,  stated  on  examination  that 
Henry  Thompson,  a  director  of  the  company,  had  told  him 
that  Caldwell  had  received  something  like  $100,000  from 
the  Erie  the  day  or  so  before  the  vote  was  taken.  Cald- 
well had  then  left  the  city.  Exactly  who  had  paid  Cald- 
well this  money  does  not  appear  from  the  testimony. 

Several  unsuccessful  attempts  were  made  to  bring  Mr. 
Caldwell  before  the  committee  to  testify.  At  length  their 
efforts  were  successful.  When  asked  by  the  committee  the 
leading  questions  as  to  whether  he  knew  of  moneys  being 

1  Senate  Documents,  op.  cit.,  p.   141  et  seq.    Payne  later  became  a 
prominent  figure  in  the  State  politically. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  119. 


3oi]  WALL  STREET  AND  THE  LEGISLATURE  301 

paid  by  interested  parties  for  or  against  the  bill,  or  to  any- 
one for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  vote  of  any  senator,  and 
whether  he  had  received  any  money  from  any  one  inter- 
ested in  opposing  the  bill,  Mr.  Caldwell  asked  for  opportu- 
nity to  reflect  whether  he  would  answer  the  question.1 
He  was  given  until  the  next  morning,  at  which  time  he  did 
not  appear.  That  was  the  last  the  committee  saw  of  him. 
It  was  learned  later  that  he  was  sojourning  in  the  Southern 
States. 

Mr.  Henry  Thompson  swore  that  he  had  given  Caldwell, 
at  one  time,  $10,000  and  at  another  $50,000,  which  was  for 
no  other  purpose  unless  to  influence  public  opinion.* 
From  Senator  Hicks'  testimony  it  appears  that  the  money 
Caldwell  received  from  the  Erie  was  for  "  services  ",  and 
from  the  Vanderbilt  party  for  "  leaving  Albany  ".3  That 
such  large  sums  of  money  were  paid  for  the  services  of 
Caldwell  or  for  his  short  absence  from  Albany  seems  in- 
credible. 

The  charges  in  connection  with  Senator  Mattoon  were 
gone  into  at  length  without  anything  definite  being  discov- 
ered.4 Senator  Graham,  also,  it  appears  from  Daniel 
Drew's  testimony,  had  an  itching  palm,  but  Mr.  Drew 
merely  "drew  an  inference"  that  the  senator  wanted  money 
or  the  promise  of  it.6 

In  bringing  its  report  to  a  close  the  committee  made  a 
savage  attack  on  the  papers  for  "  the  utter  recklessness  "  6 
with  which  they  hurled  charges  at  the  legislature  without 
proper  basis  in  evidence.  The  Tribune,  the  New  York  In- 
dependent, the  Rochester  Democrat,  the  Brooklyn  Union, 
and  the  New  York  Citizen  were  especially  mentioned. 

1  Senate  Documents,  op.  cit.,  pp.  129-131.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  140-1. 

J  Ibid.,  pp.  118-22.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  45-52,  122-124. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  10,  114.  •  Ibid.,  pp.  11. 


3o2        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [302 

The  results  of  the  committee's  prolonged  task  were 
summed-up  as  follows : 

1.  Large  sums  of  money  were  expended  for  corrupt  pur- 
poses by  parties  interested  in  legislation  concerning  railways 
during  the  session  of  1868. 

2.  Lobbyists  were  thus  enriched ;  and  in  some  cases  received 
money  on  false  pretense  that  the  votes  of  Senators  were  to  be 
thereby  influenced. 

3.  There  is  no  proof  of  actual  bribery  of  any  Senator. 

4.  The  newspaper  charges  made  in  the  instances  that  were 
brought  to  the  notice  of  your  Committee  were  founded  on 
rumor  alone,  and  have  been  in  no  case  sustained  by  the  evi- 
dence of  the  writers  or  other  proof.1 

After  this  comfortable  senatorial  whitewashing,  the 
committee  went  on  to  recommend  a  law  which  would  ex- 
empt the  giver  of  the  bribe  from  punishment.  As  the 
committee  pointed  out,  certainly  with  some  justification, 
it  was  almost  impossible  to  convict  under  the  present  laws. 
"  The  result  is  either  a  refusal  to  testify,  or  remarkable 
forgetfulness  or  something  worse."  2 

The  committee  closed  its  report  with  the  further  recom- 
mendation that  legislation  be  passed  to  prevent  the  deposit 
of  large  sums  of  money  with  members  of  the  lobby  and 
to  prevent  the  use  of  corporation  money  by  officers  or  di- 
rectors with  intent  to  violate  the  laws  against  bribery.3 
Although  the  action  of  the  senate  in  ridding  itself  from 
taint  was  far  more  dignified  and  thorough  than  that  of  the 
assembly,  the  result  proved  the  same.  Perhaps  the  com- 
mittee were  sincere,  who  knows? 

1  Senate  Documents,  op.  cit.,  pp.  140-1. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  12.  •  Ibid.,  p.  13. 


CHAPTER  XI 

The  National  Nominating  Conventions  of  1868 

the  republican  state  nominating  convention 

Aside  from  such  matters  of  local  interest  as  the  excise, 
political  personalities,  the  Tweed  ring,  the  canal  frauds  and 
the  Erie  scandal,  one  finds  in  considering  the  political  his- 
tory of  New  York  in  1868  that  the  conventions  and  the 
party  politics  of  the  State  are  but  echoes  of  the  broader 
national  movements.  Moreover,  the  New  York  delega- 
tions played  a  leading  role  in  the  deliberations  of  both  the 
Republican  and  Democratic  National  Conventions,  while 
the  State  Conventions  were  mere  ratifying  bodies.  Like- 
wise, the  action  taken  in  both  the  Republican  and  the  Demo- 
cratic State  Nominating  Conventions  proved  to  corres- 
pond with  the  part  played  by  each  State  delegation  in  the 
National  Nominating  Conventions. 

The  Republican  State  Nominating  Convention  met  at 
Shakespeare  Hall,  Syracuse,  on  February  5,  1868,  to  select 
delegates  to  the  National  Republican  Convention  at  Chi- 
cago. The  convention  demonstrated  two  points,  namely, 
that  there  was  a  strong  anti-Fenton  feeling  and  that  the 
Fenton  forces  were  well  organized.  Hamilton  Harris, 
chairman  of  the  State  central  committee  called  the  meet- 
ing to  order,  after  which  Joshua  M.  Van  Cott,  of  Kings, 
was  made  temporary  chairman.  Each  county  was  fully 
represented,  384  delegates  being  present.1 

1  New  York  Times,  Feb.  6,  1868. 
303]  303 


304        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [304 

On  the  roll  call  of  delegates  the  usual  contest  between 
the  radical  and  conservative  Republicans  from  New  York 
City  developed  and  was  settled  in  the  usual  way.  Notwith- 
standing, the  annual  airing  of  the  Republican  situation  in 
New  York  City  proved  of  greater  moment  on  this  occa- 
sion than  ordinary  as  it  was  made  a  cloak  to  cover  the  anti-, 
Fenton  faction  in  the  convention  and  to  organize  opposi- 
tion to  Fenton  himself.1 

Mr.  Rufus  W.  Andrews  handed  up  a  list  of  contestants 
from  New  York  City  approved  by  the  signatures  of  E. 
Delafield  Smith,  Thomas  J.  Murphy,  and  A.  G.  Plumb.  Mr. 
E.  Delafield  Smith  addressed  the  convention  insisting  that 
his  delegation  did  not  attend  the  convention  to  make  trouble 
but  to  effect  a  reorganization  of  the  Republican  party  in 
New  York  City.  Mr.  Smith  closed  his  address  by  offering 
a  resolution  to  the  effect  that  the  committee  on  credentials 
be  instructed  to  report  a  resolution  providing  for  a  reor- 
ganization of  the  Republican  party  in  New  York  City  and 
County,  under  the  joint  supervision  and  direction  of 
Messrs.  Freeman  J.  Fithian  and  Thomas  J.  Murphy.2 

Charles  S.  Spencer,  the  leader  of  the  Radical  or  regular 
(so-called)  Republican  organization  in  New  York  City, 
made  his  usual  "blood  and  thunder  high-pressure  reply",3  in 
which  he  quoted  the  resolutions,  adopted  by  the  Murphy  4 
organization  prior  to  the  last  State  election,  approving 
Johnson's  policy  and  pledging  support  to  John  T.  Hoff- 
man and  Robert  H.  Pruyn,  for  Governor  and  lieutenant- 

xNew  York  Times,  Feb.  6,  1868;  New  York  Tribune,  Feb.  6.  1868; 
New  York  Herald,  Feb.  6,  1868.  Official  Proceedings  of  the  National 
Convention  of  the  Republican  Party,  1868  (Chicago,  1868),  (Columbia 
University  Library,  no.  308,  H  62),  no.  16,  of  a  volume  of  pamphlets. 

*  New  York  Times,  Feb.  6,  1868. 
»  New  York  World,  Feb.  6,  1868. 

*  Conservative  Republicans. 


305]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  305 

governor,  respectively.  Spencer  also  quoted  remarks  of 
Rufus  W.  Andrews,  made  two  weeks  prior  to  the  present 
convention,  in  which  Andrews  charged  Governor  Fenton 
with  being  at  the  bottom  of  the  election  of  the  State  com- 
mittees.1 Andrews  at  that  time  threatened  another  con- 
vention in  April  to  choose  contesting  delegates  for  Chicago. 
Spencer  urged  the  convention  to  keep  its  skirts  clear  from 
the  Murphy  organization,  stating  that  their  votes  were  not 
needed  and  would  taint  the  regular  Republican  organiza- 
tion. 

Thomas  B.  Van  Buren  and  Rufus  W.  Andrews,  repre- 
senting the  Conservative  Republicans  replied  to  Spencer  at 
length.2  Mr.  Van  Buren  believed  that  a  Republican  union 
in  New  York  City  would  enable  the  Republicans  to  carry 
the  State  by  50,000  votes  in  the  fall.  Van  Buren  charged 
that  the  Spencer  organization  had  sold  out  the  Republican 
candidate  for  mayor8  in  the  last  election  and  had  spent 
time  and  money  to  elect  Fernando  Wood.  Mr.  Andrews 
asked  why,  if  the  Radical  Republican  organization  was 
competent  to  run. the  party  in  New  York  City,  there  had 
been  a  drop  from  the  usual  40,000  Republican  votes  to 
18,000  in  the  last  election.  The  Radical  organization  made 
no  attempt  to  answer.4  After  this  thorough  display,  the 
Fenton  forces  organized  to  stop  a  further  exhibition  of  the 
party's  dirty  linen.  Mr.  A.  N.  Cole  moved  that  the  dele- 
gates representing  the  Radical  Republican  organization  of 
New  York  City,  headed  by  Mr.  Nathan  Kingsley,  be  recog- 
nized and  admitted  to  seats  in  the  convention.  Secondly, 
Mr.  Cole  moved  that  the  delegates  representing  the  Con- 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Feb.  6,  1868. 

"  New  York  Herald,  Feb.  6,  1868.  »  Marshall  O.  Roberts. 

4  New  York  Herald,  Feb.  6,  1868.  Freeman  J.  Fithian  made  reply 
for  the  Radicals.  He  believed  reorganization  inexpedient  as  it  might 
alienate  the  25,000  consistent  Republican  voters  in  New  York  City. 


306        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [306 

servative  Republican  organization  be  invited  to  seats  on  the 
floor  of  the  convention.  Mr.  Cole's  motion  was  carried  by 
a  majority  of  235  to  56.1  The  Conservative  delegation 
from  New  York  City  left  the  hall  in  a  body  as  a  protest. 

The  contest  between  the  New  York  City  delegations 
proved  to  be  the  most  important  feature  of  the  convention, 
and  with  the  contest  settled  the  Fenton  forces  were  able 
to  complete  their  organization  and  put  through  their  slate 
as  planned.  After  a  short  intermission  the  convention  re- 
convened at  4:30  P.  M.,  whereupon  Charles  H.  Van  Wyck 
was  made  president  of  the  permanent  organization.  He 
devoted  his  address  to  a  review  and  censure  of  Johnson's 
policy.  Stanton  was  lauded  as  one  of  the  purest  of  Amer- 
ican patriots.  Lieutenant-Governor  Woodford  and  Lyman 
Tremaine,  also,  made  extended  speeches.2 

Judging  from  the  failure  of  one- third  of  the  delegates 
to  applaud  the  Radical  Republican  speeches,  and  from  the 
votes  on  various  of  the  motions,  it  would  appear  that  ap- 
proximately one-third  of  the  delegates  were  opposed  to 
Fenton  and  his  candidacy  for  the  vice-presidency.  The 
strength  of  the  opposition  to  Fenton  was  suspected  before 
the  convention  convened.  This  decided  the  Fenton  men 
to  take  the  matter  out  of  the  hands  of  the  convention  and 
give  it  to  a  committee,8  which  they  were  able  to  do  through 
their  superior  organization. 

The  delegates  at  large,  chosen  by  the  convention,  were 
Major-General  Daniel  E.  Sickles,  of  New  York;  Lyman 
Tremaine,  of  Albany;  Charles  Andrews,  of  Onondaga; 
and  D.  D.  S.  Brown,  of  Monroe.  General  Sickles  was 
placed  at  the  head  of  the  delegation  because  it  was  thought 
that  his  friendship  for  Grant  would  secure  Grant's  influ- 
ence for  Fenton.    Among  the  more  prominent  of  the  dele- 

1  New  York  Times,  Feb.  6,  1868.  2  Ibid. 

8  Ibid.,  New  York  World,  Feb.  6,  1868. 


307]  NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  307 

gales'  names  *  representing  the  districts  one  finds  the  fol- 

1  Congressional  District  Delegates  : 

1st  District,  Alfred  Wagstaff,  Suffolk;  L.  Bradford  Prince,  Queens. 

2nd  District,  Charles  W.  Broderick,  Kings;  Archibald  M.  Bliss, 
Kings. 

3rd  District,  Joshua  M.  Van  Cott,  Kings;  Joseph  Reeves,  Kings. 

4th  District,  Joshua  G.  Abbey,  New  York. 

5th  District,  Moses  H.  Grinnell,  New  York ;  E.  D.  Culver,  New  York. 

6th  District,  Charles  S.  Spencer,  New  York;  John  D.  Lawson,  New 
York. 

7th  District,  John  Cochrane,  New  York;  W.  F.  Ashman,  New  York. 

8th  District,  W.  R.  Stewart,  New  York ;  John  D.  Ottwell,  New  York. 

9th  District,  James  W.  Culver,  New  York;  Charles  H.  Cooper,  New 
York. 

10th  District,  H.  D.  Robertson,  New  York;  C.  N.  Depew,  West- 
chester. 

nth  District,  George  Clark,  Orange;  H.  R.  Low,  Sullivan. 

12th  District,  B.  Piatt  Carpenter,  Dutchess;  Jacob  W.  Hogsdrats, 
Columbia. 

13th  District,  George  H.  Sharp,  Ulster;  Rufus  H.  King,  Green. 

14th  District,  Hamilton  Harris,  Albany;  Borden  H.  Mills,  Albany. 

15th  District,  Robert  M.  Hasbrouck,  Rensselaer;  Alexander  Barkley, 
Washington. 

16th  District,  William  Rockwell,  Warren;  Eli  W.  Rodgers,  Essex. 

I7lh  District,  Calvin  Hulburd,  Sr.,  St.  Lawrence;  William  Gillis, 
Franklin. 

18th  District,  Truman  G.  Younglove,  Saratoga;  Seymour  Sexton, 
Fulton. 

19: h  District,  Ebenezer  Blackley,  Otsego;  Lewis  Kingsley,  Chenango. 

20th  District,  William  Dewey,  Jefferson;  E.  B.  Livingstone,  Lewis. 

21st  District,  Ellis  H.  Roberts,  Oneida;  George  B.  Anderson,  Oneida. 

22nd  District,  Benjamin  B.  Bowen,  Oswego;  Delos  W.  Cameron, 
Madison. 

23rd  District,  Frank  Hiscock,  Onondaga ;  R.  Holland  Duell,  Cortland. 

24th  District,  John  S.  Fowler,  Cayuga;  A.  D.  Baker,  Seneca. 

25th  District,  Peter  S.  Bonesdale,  Ontario;  Isaac  L.  Endres,  Liv- 
ingston. 

26th  District,  Jeremiah  W.  Dwight,  Tompkins;  Thomas  J.  Chat- 
field,  Tioga. 

27th  District,  Stephen  T.  Hoyt,  Steuben;  Luther  Caldwell,  Chemung. 

28th  District,  E.  L.  Pitts,  Orleans;  O.  C.  Wildee,  Monroe. 

29th  District,  John  Fisher,  Genesee;  Andrew  W.  Brazee,  New  York. 

30th  District,  T.  K.  Bass,  Erie;  Fred  H.  Jones,  Erie. 

31st  District,  George  B.  Barker,  Chautauqua;  Patrick  H.  Jones, 
Cattaraugus. 


308        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [308 

lowing:  Joshua  M.  Van  Cott,  of  Kings;  Charles  S.  Spen- 
cer, of  New  York;  Chauncey  M.  Depew,  of  Westchester; 
Hamilton  Harris,  of  Albany;  Calvin  Hulburd,  Sr.,  of 
St.  Lawrence;  Ellis  H.  Roberts,  of  Oneida;  Frank  Hiscock, 
of  Onondaga;  and  Luther  Caldwell,  of  Chemung. 

Lyman  Tremaine  reported  the  resolutions,  which  were 
in  full  accord  with  the  Radicals  in  Congress.1  Reuben  E. 
Fenton  was  named  as  the  first  choice  of  the  Republicans  of 
New  York  State  for  the  vice-presidency.  His  great  pru- 
dence and  firmness,  his  patriotic  service  while  in  Congress, 
and  his  sagacity  as  a  Governor  was  affirmed.  Republicans 
were  exhorted  not  to  permit  the  Democrats  to  overturn  the 
results  of  Appomattox  Court  House. 

Horace  Greeley  closed  the  convention  with  one  of  his 
ironical  addresses  in  which  he  reminded  the  Republicans 
that  the  strongest  vote  ever  cast  against  the  Republicans 
was  polled  the  previous  fall.  He  warned  them  against  over- 
confidence  and  remarked  that  something  besides  talk  would 
be  necessary  to  elect  the  Republican  ticket.2 

The  Radical  organization  under  Fenton's  leadership 
could  feel  proud  of  their  work  as  the  convention  adjourned. 
It  was  planned  and  carried  out  accordingly  to  make  the 
convention  a  Fenton  organization  meeting.  Benjamin 
Field,  Luther  Caldwell,  temporary  chairman  Joshua  Van 
Cott,  and  president  of  the  convention,  Charles  H.  Van 
Wyck,  were  credited  with  being  the  men  who  forced 
through  the  Fenton  program.  The  disturbance  caused  by 
the  recriminations  of  the  contesting  delegates  from  New 
York  City  was  the  chief  difficulty  encountered.  Although 
overcome  in  the  convention,  the  anti-Fenton  sentiment  re- 
appeared at  Chicago,  being  the  cause  in  some  degree  for 
his  failure  to  win  the  nomination  for  vice-president. 

1  New  York  Times,  Feb.  6,  1868;  New  York  Herald,  Feb.  6,  1868. 
1  New  York  Tribune,  Feb.  6,  1868. 


309]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  309 

THE    REPUBLICAN    NATIONAL    NOMINATING    CONVENTION 

The  auspices  under  which  the  National  Republican  Con- 
vention met  in  the  Crosby  Opera  House,  Chicago,  on  May 
20,  1868,  were  not  all  that  could  be  desired.1  The  friction 
between  an  impolitic,  unyielding  President  and  a  rash,  re- 
vengeful Congress  had  changed  the  current  of  public  senti- 
ment and  had  created  new  issues,  many  previously  un- 
thought  of,  causing  wounds  still  unhealed.  These  new 
issues  were  largely  foreign  to  those  which  caused  the  Civil 
War.  First,  questions  arose  concerning  the  readmittance  of 
the  seceded  States  and  their  social  and  economic  conditions, 
which  resulted  in  the  supremacy  of  the  Congressional  over 
the  Presidential  theory.  Secondly,  came  the  issue  between 
the  President  and  Congress  over  their  relative  powers. 
Thirdly,  the  shorter  but  equally  bitter  conflict  between  the 
Supreme  Court  and  Congress  arose  over  the  powers  and 
functions  of  each,  followed  by  the  withdrawal  of  the 
former  from  the  field.  Lastly,  the  attempt  to  oust  the 
President,  with  its  failure  2  and  resultant  loss  of  prestige 
for  the  Congressional  party,  made  a  situation  the  entire 
course  of  which  enveloped  the  Radical  section  of  the  Re- 
publican party  in  a  cloud  of  suspicion. 

The  agreement  of  the  delegates  8  at  Chicago  on  the  name 
of  Grant,  nevertheless,  tended  to  allay  alarm.  Grant's 
name  appears  to  have  been  accepted  without  serious  ques- 
tion. This  naturally  lessened  the  excitement  of  the  conven- 
tion. Still,  considerable  interest  was  awakened  over  the 
selection  of  the  vice-president  and  the  formation  of  a  plat- 

1  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Utica,  May  21,  1868. 

2  The  eleventh  article  of  impeachment  failed  by  a  vote  of  "  guilty  ", 
35;  "not  guilty,"  19  (test  vote)  ;  on  May  16,  1868.  Ten  days  later  the 
court  of  impeachment  adjourned  sine  die  after  reaching  the  same  re- 
sult on  the  second  and  third  articles. 

•  For  list  of  State  delegations  cf.,  New  York  Tribune,  May  19,  1868. 


3io        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [3IO 

form.  The  great  topic  of  discussion  among  the  thousands 
at  the  convention  was  the  vice-presidency.1 

The  New  York  delegation  centered  the  attention  of  the 
delegates.  It  was  practically  unanimous  in  advising  against 
any  allusion  to  the  anti-impeachment  senators  in  the  plat- 
form, but  was  ready  to  support  the  position  of  the  Radicals 
on  all  points  involved  in  the  impeachment  trial.  The  New 
York  delegation  brought  with  them  an  organization  of  ap- 
proximately two  hundred  outsiders  who  were  organized 
under  Thomas  G.  Alvord  as  chairman.  These  men  were 
divided  among  the  various  State  delegations  to  work  for 
the  nomination  of  Governor  Fenton  for  vice-president. 

Nevertheless  the  New  York  delegation  was  not  a  unit. 
The  Conservative  Republicans  of  New  York  occupied  prac- 
tically the  entire  day  of  May  19th  attempting  to  demon- 
strate to  the  various  State  delegations  that  New  York  was 
not  solid  for  Fenton.  A  circular  signed  by  Senators  Charles 
J.  Folger,  Richard  Crowley,  ex-Senator  Thomas  J.  Murphy, 
Rufus  W.  Andrews,  Hugh  Hastings  and  others  who  called 
themselves  delegates  to  the  convention  was  distributed. 
This  move  did  not  net  them  much  as  the  Fentonites  sent 
forth  counter  circulars  showing  that  the  majority  of  the 
signers  on  the  first  circular  had  supported  Hoffman,  the 
Tammany-Tweed  ring  candidate  for  Governor.2 

Six  candidates  for  vice-president  were  prominent  before 
the  convention :  Governor  Reuben  E.  Fenton,  of  New  York; 
Speaker  Schuyler  Colfax,  of  Indiana;  Governor  Curtin,  of 
Pennsylvania;  ex-Vice-President  Hamlin,  of  Maine;  Sen- 
ator Benjamin  F.  Wade,  of  Ohio,  and  Senator  Henry  Wil- 
son, of  Massachusetts. 

Prior  to  the  assembling  of  the  convention  it  was  under- 

1  New  York  Tribune,  May  20,  1868. 

2  Ibid.    New  York  Times,  May  20,  1868. 


3 1 1  ]         NA  TIONAL  NOMINA  TING  CONVENTIONS  3 1 j. 

stood  that  New  York  would  press  Fenton  until  his  nomina- 
tion was  clearly  seen  to  be  impossible.  The  delegation  re- 
fused to  indicate  a  second  choice,  yet  it  was  understood 
about  the  convention  that  New  York,  in  case  of  failure  to 
nominate  Fenton,  would  support  either  Hamlin  or  Colfax.1 

The  matter  of  seating  the  Southern  States'  delegations 
was  a  problem  freely  discussed  prior  to  the  convention. 
All  the  Southern  States  were  represented  except  Texas. 
The  Southern  delegates  were  firm  in  their  belief  that  they 
would  have  no  trouble  in  gaining  seats.  Many  among  them 
declared  that  they  would  join  the  Democracy  sooner  than 
submit  to  what  they  would  consider  an  insult.  Neverthe- 
less, when  the  temporary  organization  was  completed  the 
New  York  delegation  under  the  leadership  of  Charles  Spen- 
cer forced  the  admittance  of  the  Southern  votes.  Great  ap- 
plause attended  the  action.  The  New  York  delegation  was 
unquestionably  the  leader  for  the  day  and  lost  no  oppor- 
tunity to  push  Fenton.2 

Curious  was  the  situation  which  now  existed.  Radicals 
were  recognizing  in  their  convention  representatives  from 
States  which  they  refused  to  recognize  in  Congress.  How- 
ever, the  reason  for  this  action  on  the  part  of  the  conven- 
tion is  obvious.  Investigation  shows  that  it  was  around  the 
votes  of  the  Southern  delegates  that  the  chief  trading  in 
candidates  centered.8 

The  temporary  and  permanent  organizations  having 
been  effected,  respectively,  under  General  Carl  Schurz,  of 
Missouri,  and  ex-Governor  Hawley,  of  Connecticut,  on 
May  20th,  the  convention  reconvened  at  ten  A.  M.  on  the 
2 1st,  and  the  committee  on  the  platform,  after  an  all-night 

1  New  York  Times,  May  29,  1868.  New  York  Tribune,  May  19,  1868. 
1  New  York  Times,  May  21,  1868;  New  York  Tribune,  May  21,  1868. 
8  New  York  Times,  May  21,  1868 ;  New  York  Herald,  May  21,  1868. 


3i2        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [312 

session,  reported  through  its  chairman,  Hon.  R.  W.  Thomp- 
son, of  Indiana.  The  chief  struggle  in  the  committee  had 
been  over  the  question  whether  or  not  to  censure  the  sena- 
tors who  had  defeated  impeachment.1  The  moderates  won. 
Yet  when  it  was  seen  that  Johnson  was  arraigned,  the 
House  of  Representatives  commended  for  impeaching  him 
and  Johnson  declared  to  have  been  properly  found  guilty 
by  the  votes  of  thirty-five  senators,  without  any  impugning 
of  the  motives  of  the  senators  who  voted  against  impeach- 
ment, every  one  appeared  content  with  the  compromise. 
"  The  friends  of  conscience  and  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment thanked  God  it  was  no  worse."  2 

The  convention  next  proceeded  to  the  Presidential  nomi- 
nations. General  John  A.  Logan,  in  a  brief  but  stirring 
speech,  placed  General  Grant  in  nomination.3  As  each  dele- 
gation voted  solidly  for  Grant,  totaling  650  votes,  the  wild 
enthusiasm  of  the  wigwam  knew  no  bounds.  It  was  the 
first  real  burst  of  enthusiasm  in  the  convention. 

Attention  was  next  given  to  nominations  for  the  vice- 
presidency.  The  strife  between  the  three  leading  candi- 
dates, Benjamin  F.  Wade,  of  Ohio,  Schuyler  Colfax,  of 
Indiana,  and  Reuben  E.  Fenton,  of  New  York,  was  keen. 
Governor  Fenton  was  proposed  by  Lyman  Tremaine  in  a 
spirited  speech.  The  enthusiasm  with  which  Fenton's  name 
was  received  placed  him  third  in  popular  favor.  On  the 
first  ballot  Fenton  ranked  second  to  Wade,  but  fell  into 
third  position  on  the  second,  where  he  remained  to  the  end. 

1  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  May  21,  1868. 

2  New  York  Times,  May  22,  1868. 

8  On  the  day  previous  a  premature  attempt  had  been  made  to 
nominate  Grant  by  acclamation  but  the  excitement  had  been  allayed 
by  Lyman  Tremaine,  who  urged  that  the  nomination  should  proceed 
with  dignity  and  deliberation. 


313]         NA  TIONAL  NOMINA  TING  CONVENTIONS  3  T  3 

General  Dodge,  of  Iowa,  who  had  been  balancing  his  dele- 
gation between  Fenton  and  Colfax,  on  the  fifth  ballot  threw 
his  solid  vote  of  sixteen  for  Colfax.  This  acted  as  a  match 
to  oil.  When  the  furore  ceased  the  vote  stood — Colfax 
522,  Fenton  75,  and  Wade  42. 1  General  Sickles,  of  New 
York,  then  made  a  motion  that  the  nominations  be  made 
unanimous,  which  was  seconded  by  Ohio  and  carried. 

Although  the  platform  was  a  compromise  between  the 
opposing  elements  in  the  party,  the  advantage  lay  with 
the  Radicals.  The  provisions  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment found  place :  "  the  guarantee  by  Congress  of 
equal  suffrage  to  all  loyal  men  of  the  South "  was 
assured,  but  at  the  same  time  it  was  asserted  that  the 
question  of  suffrage  in  all  the  loyal  states  belonged  to  the 
people  of  those  states  alone.  All  forms  of  repudiation 
were  denounced  and  it  was  declared  that  taxation  should 
be  "  equalized  and  reduced  "  as  rapidly  as  the  national  faith 
would  permit.  The  national  debt  should  be  extended  over 
a  fair  period  of  redemption.  President  Johnson  and  his 
policy  were  denounced  in  no  uncertain  terms  but  the  Con- 
servative element  in  the  convention  and  the  committee 
on  resolutions  was  able  to  modify  the  stand  taken  on 
the   impeachment,   as  has  been   stated  above.     The  doc- 

1  Table  of  vote  on  Vice-President: 
Ballot  1 

Benjamin  F.  Wade 149 

Reuben  E.  Fenton 132 

Henry  Wilson 119 

Schuyler  Colfax    118 

Andrew  G.  Curtin 52 

Hannibal   Hamlin    30 

James   Speed  22 

James  Harlan  16 

John  A.  J.  Cresswell  ...     14 
William  D.  Kelley   6 


2 

3 

4 

5 

170 

178 

204 

199 

140 

130 

144 

137 

113 

101 

87 

61 

149 

164 

186 

224 

45 

30 

30 

25 

25 

19 

314        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [314 

trine  of  indefeasible  allegiance,1  under  which  a  State  clothes 
with  its  nationality  all  citizens  no  matter  where  they 
reside  or  resident,  as  strictly  followed  by  Great  Britain 
and  other  European  powers,  was  condemned  "  as  a  relic  of 
feudal  times."  Rather  different  from  the  present  idea, 
foreign  emigration  was  approved  and  the  United  States 
was  to  be  the  asylum  for  the  oppressed  of  all  nations. 

There  were  not  many,  who,  under  the  enthusiasm  of  the 
Chicago  Convention,  stopped  to  realize  that  Grant's  nomi- 
nation as  a  "  foregone  conclusion  "  and  as  an  act  of  the 
highest  political  wisdom,  acknowledged  by  Republicans  of 
whatever  section,  indicated  a  very  marked  and  rapid  change 
in  the  sentiment  of  the  Republican  party.2  A  year  previous 
he  had  been  the  candidate  of  only  the  moderate  group  of 
the  Republican  party.  The  mildness  of  his  terms  to  Lee 
and  his  insistence  that  they  be  lived  up  to ;  his  report  to  the 
President  on  the  condition  of  the  South  which  Sumner 
characterized  in  the  senate  as  a  "  whitewashing  docu- 
ment"; and  his  apparent  wish  to  make  no  declaration  of 
principles,  which  lead  to  the  belief  that  he  was  opposed  to 
universal  negro  suffrage;  all  these  had  tended  to  separate 
him  from  the  Radicals.  It  was  not  until  Grant's  unfortunate 
quarrel  with  Johnson ;  and  his  position  in  the  complications 
growing  out  of  the  action  of  certain  district  commanders,3 

1  Westlake,  pt.  i,  pp.  214-33.  Scott,  Cases  on  International  Law, 
PP.  370-412.  Jus  sanguinis,  i.  e.  rule  of  descent  or  parentage,  is  con- 
trasted with  Jus  soli,  i.  e.,  rule  of  the  soil. 

2  As  early  as  July  23,  1867  the  Republican  general  committee  of  New 
York  City  nominated  General  Grant  for  President.  That  Republican 
opinion  throughout  the  North  was  not  uniform  regarding  Grant 
at  that  time  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  on  the  same  day  which  saw 
Grant  nominated  in  New  York  City,  the  Republican  State  Convention 
of  New  Jersey  voted  down  by  a  pronounced  majority  a  similar  mot'on 
for  the  nomination  of  Grant.  (New  York  World,  July  25,  1867.) 
Greeley,  also,  was  opposed  to  Grant  at  this  time.  (New  York  Tri- 
bune, Oct.  15,  1867,  Nov.  17,  1867.) 

8  Sheridan  and  Sickles  especially. 


315]         NA  TIONAL  NOMINA  TING  CONVENTIONS  3 T 5 

together  with  the  consciousness  apparently  dawning  on  the 
Radicals  that  they  had  about  reached  their  limit  in  recon- 
struction, that  the  Radicals  found  in  Grant  available  timber 
for  the  Presidency.  Up  to  that  point  Chief  Justice  Chase 
had  been  the  Radicals'  favorite  candidate. 

Henry  J.  Raymond  was  open  to  conviction  that  the  work 
of  the  convention  was  for  the  best.  He  was  strongly  in 
favor  of  Grant  but  with  reference  to  the  vice-presidency 
allowed  that  "  it  might  not  be  hard  to  name  other  candi- 
dates, who  would  bring  to  the  party,  on  grounds  of  locality 
as  well  as  from  personal  ability,  more  of  real  strength  "  x 
than  Colfax,  although  he  admitted  that  his  nomination  was 
"  eminently  judicious  ".  The  platform  was  "  as  good  as 
we  were  entitled  to  expect  ".  However,  it  would  have  been 
better,  thought  Raymond,  to  have  dropped  the  subject  of 
impeachment  entirely;  and  in  relation  to  a  rapid  reduction 
of  taxation  and  the  strictest  economy  in  the  administration 
of  the  government  "a  Republican  Convention  in  1868  ought 
to  have  been  able  to  present  something  more  effective  than 
promises  ".  The  Tunes,  while  still  a  loyal  servant,  had 
not  forgotten  its  recent  treatment  at  the  hands  of  the  Radi- 
cals. In  spite  of  its  realization  that  the  financial  plank  of 
the  Republicans  fell  short,  the  Times  ably  rallied  to  its  sup- 
port when  the  Democrats  attacked  it  as  meaning  nothing.2 

Horace  Greeley  observed  that  it  was  not  necessary  to 
hold  a  convention  to  nominate  a  Republican  for  President.3 
As  for  Schuyler  Colfax  *  he  considered  him  the  best  can- 

1  New  York  Times,  May  22,  1868. 

*  New  York  Times,  May  25,  1868. 

*  New  York  Tribune,  May  22,  1868. 

.*  Schuyler  Colfax  was  a  native  of  New  York  City  and  at  the  time  of 
election  was  45  years  of  age.  He  had  moved  with  his  mother  and  step- 
father to  norlhern  Indiana,  where  first  as  a  clerk  then  as  proprietor 
of  the  St.  Joseph  Valley  Register  at  South  Bend,  he  early  entered 
politics.  His  sheet  controlled  the  Republicans  of  St.  Joseph  County  and 
resulted  in  his  seventh  renomination  and  election  to  Congress. 


3i6        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [3I6 

didate,  with  regrets  on  grounds  of  amiability.1  "  The  plat- 
form is  fair,  temperate  and  firm,"  said  Greeley.  "  Now  let 
our  friends  in  Congress  push  on  the  work  of  reconstruction 
.  .  .  so  that  the  votes  of  all  the  States,  if  possible,  may  be 
cast  at  the  election."  2 

The  Evening  Post  subscribed  editorially  to  all  the  results 
of  the  National  Republican  Convention  in  one  of  its  clear, 
well-balanced,  but  bloodless  statements.  It  predicted  that 
the  campaign  would  be  waged  over  the  matter  of  equal  suf- 
frage.3 Three  days  later  the  Evening  Post,  on  a  closer 
inspection,  decided  that  the  platform  was  less  broad  than 
might  be  desired  on  the  matter  of  equal  suffrage.  It  un- 
mercifully suggested  that  the  Republicans  should  have 
taken  their  own  medicine  by  recommending  a  change  of 
constitutions  in  the  loyal  states  so  that  they  would  read  for 
equal  suffrage.4 

Five  months  prior  to  the  nominations,  the  World  5  would 
have  considered  the  personal  availability  of  the  Republi- 
cans' ticket  a  strong  one,  due  to  the  successful  military 
career  of  Grant.  However,  since  then  he  had  been  con- 
victed of  demagogism  and  duplicity  in  his  connection  with 
the  Radicals.  Colfax,  the  World  admitted,  was  a  popular 
man  with  his  party,  but  one  who  was  a  persistent  popularity- 

1  New  York  Tribune,  May  23,  1868.  2  Ibid. 

•  New  York  Evening  Post,  May  22,  1868. 

4  New  York  Evening  Post,  May  23,  25,  1868.  The  Philadelphia 
Press  undertook  after  the  National  Republican  Convention  to  purify 
the  party.  It  placed  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Grimes,  Ross,  Trumbull,  Van 
Winkle,  and  Henderson  on  a  "  Senatorial  black-list."  Also  it  read  out 
of  the  party  support  the  New  York  Evening  Post;  Chicago  Tribune, 
Cincinnati  Commercial,  Providence  Journal,  Springfield  Republican, 
Bridgeport  Standard,  Buffalo  Advertiser,  Buffalo  Express,  and  Hart- 
ford Courant.  The  Evening  Post  took  occasion  to  declare  itself  an 
independent  organ. 

5  New  York  World,  May  22,  1868. 


3 1 7]         NA  TIONAL  NOMINA  TING  CONVENTIONS  3 1  y 

hunter  and  as  such  ready  to  change  with  the  strongest  wind. 
The  World  argued  that  the  candidates  and  platform  would 
be  weakened  by  three  things.  First,  the  bloodshed  and  vio- 
lence in  the  South  resulting  from  the  Radical  policy  had 
shocked  the  Conservative  element  of  the  country.  Second, 
the  fact  that  both  candidates  coming  from  the  middle  West 
would  tend  to  alienate  the  East,  especially,  as  the  friends  of 
Fenton,  Wilson,  Hamlin  and  of  Curtin  all  had  reason  to 
complain.1 

The  Sun  in  its  avowed  capacity  as  an  independent  organ 
considered  Grant's  name  a  tower  of  strength  to  the  Repub- 
licans. But  in  viewing  the  field  from  its  independent 
standpoint  the  Sun  did  not  regard  Grant  as  a  partisan,  nor 
as  the  candidate  of  a  political  party.2  Colfax,  "  a  gentle- 
man of  pure  character,8  of  popular  manners  ",  was  wisely 
placed  on  the  ticket  as  a  Republican  to  balance  Grant  as  a 
War  Democrat. 

James  Gordon  Bennett  considered  that  Grant  was  far 
stronger  than  his  party,  which  had  been  weakened  by  the 
Radical  excess.4  "  Old  Ben  Wade  "  as  a  bigoted  fanatic, 
Fenton  as  a  failure  and  Curtin  as  a  very  respectable  man 
were  politically  buried  by  the  Herald.  Bennett  termed  the 
Republican  platform  as  "  conveniently  evasive  and  withal 
as  elastic  as  India  rubber  ".5  Nevertheless,  the  Herald  was 
unqualified  in  its  statement  that  in  the  platform  the  con- 
vention had  stepped  over  the  boggy  places. 

Thurlow  Weed  heartily  endorsed  Grant  and  Colfax,  but 

1  New  York  World,  May  22,  1868. 
»  New  York  Sun,  June  2,  1868. 

8  See  Credit  Mobilier  scandal  in  Dunning,  Reconstruction,  pp.  231-3. 
Rhodes,  United  States  History,  vol.  vii,  ch.  xi  passim. 

4  New  York  Herald,  May  22,  1868. 
*  Ibid.,  May  23,  1868. 


3i8        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [318 

found  a  platform  to  which  the  party  would  not  give  entire 
and  cordial  assent.1  Weed  could  not  see  the  advantage 
in  a  prolongation  of  the  snarl  with  Johnson.  "  What  the 
House  failed  to  establish,  the  voice  of  Loyal  Leagues,  of 
committees,  of  backwoods  gatherings  and  even  of  a  Na- 
tional Convention  cannot  dignify."  2  The  defeat  of  Fenton 
gave  Weed  complete  satisfaction;  he  had  urged  that  the 
Grant  ticket  be  not  imperiled  by  his  candidacy. 

Among  the  up-State  papers  the  epitomized  sentiment 3 
of  the  New  York  City  journals  was  generally  made  the 
basis  for  editorials.  The  Rochester  Daily  Democrat  con- 
sidered that  the  "  platform  is  all  that  we  could  wish  it  to 
be  ".4  Regarding  the  defeat  of  Fenton  the  Daily  Demo- 
crat stated  the  Governor  lost  because  a  noisy  squad  of 
Weed  men  pretended  that  Fenton  was  not  fully  supported 
at  home.  The  declarations  of  Weed  were,  without  doubt, 
the  truth,  the  evident  wishes  of  the  Daily  Democrat 5  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding.  The  most  flattering  and  per- 
haps sincere  indorsement  of  Colfax  which  appeared  in  any 
of  the  State  journals  was  published  by  the  Buffalo  Express. 

If  strength  is  needed  to  be  accumulated  upon  a  ticket  which 
General  Grant  heads,  it  is  to  be  added  by  the  name  of  Schuyler 
Colfax,  whose  whole  record  in  Congress  from  the  day  he  en- 
tered the  House  of  Representatives  until  he  became  again  and 

1  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  May  21,  1868. 

2  Ibid. 

8  New  York  City  press  attitude  on  May  22,  1868 :  Tribune,  "  De- 
lighted with  the  action  of  the  Chicago  Convention."  Times,  "  Con- 
vention on  the  whole  did  its  work  well."  World,  "  Ticket  as  a  whole 
is  not  a  strong  one."  Herald,  "  Ticket  is  a  strong  one."  Sun,  "  To 
defeat  the  ticket  the  Democrats  must  nominate  two  of  their  ablest 
and  most  popular  men." 

4  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  May  22,  1868. 

6  Ibid. 


319]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  319 

again  its  presiding  officer  has  been  among  the  most  brilliant 
and  unblemished  in  the  annals  of  the  national  legislature.1 

The  leading  Radical  organ  of  the  southern  tier,  the 
Binghamton  Daily  Republican,  which  very  frankly  classi- 
fied itself  as  belonging  to  the  "  more  advanced  school  ",2 
had  placed  Grant  at  the  head  of  its  ticket  on  February  24, 
1868,  with  the  explanation  that  although  Grant  is  not  a 
Radical,  so-called,  "  we  trust  him  implicitly  ".  The  Daily 
Republican  was  one  of  Governor  Fenton's  urgent  advo- 
cates for  vice-president.  It  argued  for  Fenton  as  an 
able  and  incorruptible  governor  who  had  twice  defeated 
the  Democrats  of  the  State  against  fearful  odds.  But  on 
Fenton's  failure  the  change  to  Colfax  was  made  without  a 
ripple  of  disappointment.3  The  Broome  Weekly  Republi- 
can reflected  the  sentiment  of  the  Daily  Republican  in 
speaking  of  Colfax — "  His  political  opponents  can  only 
strengthen  his  claims  by  objecting  to  his  politics."  4 

To  Ellis  Roberts,  of  the  Utica  Morning  Herald,  the  out- 
look did  not  appear  so  roseate  as  the  majority  of  Radical 
journals  asserted.  Although  in  the  van  of  the  journals 
which  flayed  Johnson  and  his  policy  the  Morning  Herald 
appeared  to  have  become  suddenly  cautious  and  timid.5  To 
Roberts  the  election  of  Grant  was  a  possibility  not  a  proba- 
bility. As  for  Colfax  the  necessity  for  bolstering  the  weak 
spots  in  his  political  career  were  obvious.8  It  would  seem 
that  Roberts  read  the  political  barometer  aright  with  refer- 
ence to  New  York  State,  but  made  his  error  in  interpreting 

1  Buffalo  Express,  May  22,  1868. 
'Binghamton  Daily  Republican,  Feb.  24,  1868. 
1  Ibid.,  May  22,  1868. 
4  Broome  Weekly  Republican,  May  27,  1868. 

*  Utica  Morning  Herald,  May  21,  1868. 

•  Ibid.,  May  23,  1868. 


320        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [320 

the  rise  of  Democratic  strength  in  New  York  as  indicative 
of  the  situation  in  the  country  at  large.  Roberts  followed  the 
New  York  Times  as  a  political  indicator,  and  apparently 
was  influenced  by  its  hesitating  and  doubtful  approval  of 
the  Chicago  convention.  Yet,  prone  to  display  the  weak- 
nesses of  human  nature,  he  could  not  refrain  from  a  covert 
sneer.1 

That  old-time  bulwark  of  Republicanism,  the  Albany 
Evening  Journal,  true  to  its  ancient  habit,  was  unrestrained 
in  its  enthusiasm  over  the  nomination  of  Grant  and  con- 
sidered his  defeat  impossible.  It  gave  Fenton  poor  con- 
solation by  pointing  out  that  he  should  feel  proud  of  the 
support  accorded  him  for  the  vice-presidency,  coming  as 
it  did  from  all  over  the  Union.2  The  Evening  Journal  re- 
joiced that  the  platform  endorsed  Congressional  Reconstruc- 
tion, but  stated  that  the  direct  issue  in  the  campaign  was 
the  declaration  of  the  platform  in  favor  of  the  redemption 
of  the  national  debt  according  to  the  terms  of  its  creation.3 

As  typical  of  the  up-State  Democratic  editorials  on  the 
Chicago  Convention,  the  Utica  Daily  Observer  published 
what  might  be  termed  the  best  example  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  results  of  the  convention  were  received.4  Said 
the  Daily  Observer: 

The  Radical  leaders  are  experts  in  the  manufacture  of  flimsy 
sensations  and  political  claptrap.  In  the  preparation  of  Brum- 
magen  tinsel,  meretricious  ornamentation,  the  fripperies,  the 
simulated  thunder  and  lightning,  hail  and  rain  of  the  theaters, 

1  The  New  York  Times  is  the  nearest  to  hesitation  and  doubt,  as  is 
characteristic  of  it.    Utica  Morning  Herald,  May  25,  1868. 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  May  22,  1868. 

8  Ibid. 

4  See  also  Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser,  May  20,  22,  1868. 
"  In  the  character  and  capacity  of  its  individual  members  it  is  the 
weakest  national  convention  in  the  history  of  American  politics." 


32I ]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  321 

they  are  unrivaled.  The  cheap  exhibitions  of  pinchbeck 
patriotism,  and  veneered  honesty,  with  which  they  deceive  the 
acidulated  old  maids,  gullible  grannies  and  short-sighted  fana- 
tics and  bigots,  who  constitute  the  basis  of  their  party,  are 
clever  specimens  of  adroit  management  of  puppet  shows. 
Their  proficiency  in  the  knavish  legerdemain  of  politics  is 
certainly  remarkable:  their  facile  shiftings  of  the  Radical 
"  little  joker  "  under  the  thimble — upon  which  the  people  stake 
their  money  and  lose — are  marvels  of  manipulation.  We 
wonder  at  the  verdancy  of  those  that  allow  themselves 
to  be  bamboozled  by  this  jugglery;  while  we  are  disgusted  with 
the  cant,  hypocrisy,  and  insincerity  of  the  performers  them- 
selves.1 

THE  DEMOCRATIC  STATE  NOMINATING  CONVENTION 

The  Democrats  of  the  State  met  in  State  Convention  at 
Tweedle  Hall,  Albany,  on  March  11,  1868,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  nominating  delegates  to  the  Democratic  National 
Nominating  Convention.  The  usual  Democratic  atmos- 
phere seemed  to  be  lacking,  for  New  York  City  failed  to 
send  contesting  delegations.  Only  one  seat  was  contested 
in  the  convention.2  William  M.  Tweed  and  his  disciples 
seemed  to  look  on  the  proceedings  with  the  coolness  of  mas- 
ters,8 hence  the  great  display  of  harmony.4 

1  Utica  Daily  Observer,  May  26,  1868. 

*  New  York  Herald,  March  12,  1868.  Mr.  Jacobs,  of  Kings,  claimed 
the  seat  of  Mr.  Voorhies,  of  the  9th  district  of  Kings.  Mr.  Jacobs' 
name  had  been  listed  among  the  delegates,  but  overnight  Mr. 
Voorhies'  name  was  substituted.  Tammany  had  not  forgiven  Mr. 
Jacobs  for  his  effrontery  in  running  for  speaker  contrary  to  the  ma- 
chine in  the  legislature. 

8  New  York  World,  March  12,  1868;  New  York  Herald,  March  12, 
1868.  Tweed  moved  the  nominations  of  the  vice-presidents.  Tweed 
and  Richard  B.  Connolly  represented  the  first  district  on  the  com- 
mittee to  select  delegates. 

*  It   appears   that   the  program   was    arranged   the   night   before   in 


322        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [322 

The  absence  of  contesting  delegations  permitted  the  lead- 
ers to  start  the  convention  with  the  permanent  organization. 
Samuel  J.  Tilden,  chairman  of  the  State  central  committee, 
called  the  convention  to  order  and  under  his  direction  the 
organization  was  completed  without  controversy,  with 
Marshall  B.  Champlain,  of  Allegany,  as  president.  Cham- 
plain's  address  had  for  its  keynote  the  thought  that  Democ- 
racy was  in  the  midst  of  revolution,  therefore  it  must  act 
calmly. 

After  a  recess  the  convention  reassembled  at  3  130  P.  M. 
and  was  addressed  by  Horatio  Seymour,  whose  speech  was 
the  counterpart  of  the  convention  proceedings,  being  non- 
committal, unsuggestive  and  lacking  a  certain  firmness.  The 
tenor  of  Seymour's  address  was  that  the  Democrats  should 
present  no  candidate  at  this  time  but  go  to  the  National 
Convention  prepared  to  take  advantage  of  circumstances 
and  issues  as  they  presented  themselves  at  that  time,  and 
support  the  candidates  best  suited  to  present  those  issues. 
Seymour  devoted  the  greater  part  of  his  address  to  an  able 
but  bloodless  discussion  of  currency,  bonds  and  taxes  in 
which  nothing  new  was  presented.1  Samuel  J.  Tilden  ad- 
dressed the  convention  at  length  after  Seymour.  Tilden  re- 
viewed the  history  of  the  two  parties  and  contended  that  the 
policy  of  the  Republicans  had  been,  and  was,  to  impoverish 
the  country,  centralize  power,  paralyze  industry,  multiply 
taxation  and  elevate  the  negro  while  degrading  the  white 


Tweed's  headquarters,  Room  No.  57 — Delevan  House.  Orders  were 
given  out  that  a  free  and  unrestrained  expression  of  opinion  was  to 
prevail.  New  York  Herald,  March  12,  1868;  New  York  World, 
March  12,  1868. 

1  New  York  World,  March   12,   1868;   New  YorkTimes,   March   12, 
1868. 

8  Ibid. 


323]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  323 

The  delegates-at-large  reported  by  Delos  De  Wolf,  of  the 
committee  to  select  delegates,  were  Horatio  Seymour,  Sam- 
uel J.  Tilden,  Sanford  E.  Church  and  Henry  C.  Murphy. 
Among  the  district  delegates  *  appear  the  names  of  William 

1  Delegates  at  Large. 

Horatio  Seymour;  alternate  Augustus  C.  Hand. 
Samuel  J.  Tilden ;  alternate  George  W.  McLean. 
Sanford  E.  Church;  alternate  Robert  P.  Lanning. 
Henry  C.  Murphy;  alternate  George  Law. 

Congressional  District  Delegates. 

1st  District,  Erastus  Brooks,  Richmond;  John  Armstrong,  Queens. 

2nd  District,  James  B.  Craig,  Kings;  William  Marshall,  Kings. 

3rd  District,  Alexander  McCue,  Kings;  James  Murphy,  Kings. 

4th  District,  Joseph  Dowling,  New  York ;  Michael  Norton,  New  York. 

5th  District,  William  M.  Tweed,  New  York;  John  Morrissey,  New 
York. 

6th   District,   Emaneul   B.   Hart,   New   York;    Oswald   Ottendorfer, 
New  York. 

7th    District,    Charles   G.   Cornell,    New    York;    Charles    E.    Loew, 
New  York. 

8th   District,   Augustus   Schell,   New   York;    A.    Oakey   Hall,   New 
York. 

9th  District,  Albert  Cardozo,  New  York;  Edward  Jones,  New  York. 

10th  District,  Collin  Talmie,  Putnam;  Robert  Cochran,  Westchester. 

nth  District,  James  D.  Decker,  Sullivan;  Enoch  Carter,  Orange. 

12th    District,    Henry    A.    Tilden,    Columbia;     Charles    Wheaton, 
Dutchess. 

13th  District,  Jacob  Hardenburgh,  Ulster;  George  Beach,  Greene. 

14th  District,  William  Cassidy,  Albany;  Charles  Goodyear,  Schoharie. 

15th  District,  Moses  Warren,  Rensselaer;  Emerson  E.  Davis,  Wash- 
ington. 

16th  District,  Timothy  Hoyle,  Clinton;  Halsey  R.  Wing,  Warren. 

17th  District,  Samuel  B.Gordon,  St.  Lawrence;  Darius  W.  Lawrence, 
Franklin. 

18th  District,  Cornelius  A.  Russell,  Saratoga;  Colonel  Simeon  Sam- 
mons,  Montgomery. 

19th    District,    Luther    J.    Burdett,    Otsego;    John    F.    Hubburd, 
Chenango. 

20th  District,  Allen  C.  Beach,  Jefferson;  Lorenzo  Caryl,  Herkimer. 

21st  District,  Francis  Kernan,  Oneida;  George  H.  Sanford,  Oneida. 

22nd   District,   William   F.    Allen,    Oswego;    Charles    Stebbins,    Jr., 
Madison. 


324        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [324 

M.  Tweed,  Albert  Cardozo,  A.  Oakey  Hall,  John  Morrissey, 
Charles  E.  Loew,  all  of  Tammany  fame;  William  Cassidy, 
of  Albany;  Allen  C.  Beach,  of  Jefferson;  Francis  Kernan, 
of  Oneida;  Charles  Stebbins,  Jr.,  of  Madison;  Marshall 
B.  Champlain,  of  Allegany,  and  William  Williams,  of  Erie. 

The  evening  session  was  devoted  to  the  adoption  of  a 
platform  which  was  presented  by  Mr.  A.  B.  Conger.1  The 
news  from  New  Hampshire,  which  had  elected  a  Republican 
Governor  two  days  prior,  apparently  caused  the  adoption 
of  a  non-committal  platform  following  the  cue  in  Sey- 
mour's speech.  The  platform  emphasized  the  spirit  of 
unanimity  which  prevailed  in  the  party  and  scored  Congress 
for  its  waste,  exorbitant  tariff,  violations  of  its  pledges  to 
bring  peace,  its  prostitution  of  every  branch  of  public  ser- 
vice and  for  its  attempt  to  depose  the  President. 

A  strong  feeling  prevailed  in  the  convention  in  favor  of 
taxing  United  States  bonds  and  paying  in  legal  tenders  at 
maturity,  where  it  was  not  stipulated  that  gold  should  be 
paid.  However  in  view  of  the  non-committal  policy  of  the 
convention  it  was  thought  unwise  to  take  any  action  on  the 
question,  but  leave  it  open  for  the  Democratic  National 

23rd  District,  James  P.  Haskins,  Onondaga;  John  A.  Green,  Jr., 
Onondaga. 

24th  District,  Elmore  P.  Ross,  Cayuga;  Charles  L.  Lyon,  Wayne. 

25th  District,  Joseph  L.  Lewis,  Ontario;  Lester  B.  Faulkner,  Liv- 
ingston. 

26th  District,  Hiram  A.  Beebe,  Tioga;  Jeremiah  McGuire,  Schuyler. 

27th  District,  Marshall  B.  Champlain,  Allegany;  Daniel  C.  Howell, 
Steuben. 

28th  District,  George  W.  Miller,  Monroe;  Henry  J.  Sickles,  Orleans. 

29th  District,  Sherburn  B.  Piper,  Niagara;  Henry  A.  Richmond, 
Genesee. 

30th  District,  Joseph  Warren,  Erie;  William  Williams,  Erie. 

31st  District,  Charles  H.  Lee,  Chautauqua ;  Jonas  Button,  Cattaraugus. 

1  New  York  World,  March  12,  1868;  New  York  Herald,  March  12, 
1868. 


325]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  325 

Convention,  which  would  have  a  surer  light  to  follow,  after 
the  Republican  National  Convention  had  met  and  adopted  a 
platform.1 

THE  DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTION 

The  Republican  National  Convention  over,  the  attention 
of  both  parties  was  naturally  turned  towards  the  action  of 
the  Democratic  National  Nominating  Convention  which 
was  to  meet  in  New  York  City  in  early  July.  The  Repub- 
lican journals  of  the  State  appeared  largely  certain  of  what 
the  Democrats  would  do  at  New  York,  or  at  least,  what  they 
should  do.  The  Democratic  journals,  on  the  other  hand, 
failed  to  exhibit  any  firm  touches  in  their  cautious  treat- 
ment of  the  subject.  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Chase  appeared  to 
be  the  candidate  best  calculated  to  add  strength  to  the 
Democratic  ticket  from  a  Republican  viewpoint.2  Whether 
this  was  a  sincere  belief  is,  of  course,  difficult  to  judge. 
Moreover,  the  honorable  position  and  undoubted  character 
of  the  Chief  Justice  gave  the  discussion  of  his  merits  a  cer- 
tain validity.  Be  that  as  it  may,  beyond  question  there 
were  many  Radicals  who  urged  the  claims  of  Chase,  as  a 
Democratic  candidate,  in  the  hope  that  if  he  were  nomi- 
nated his  previous  state  of  unstable  political  equilibrium 
would  react  upon  him  to  the  advantage  of  the  Radicals.8 
The  Evening  Post,  however,  appeared  to  be  sincere  in  its 
suggestions  that  Chase  would  make  the  best  Democratic 
candidate.  It  stated  that  it  would  look  upon  the  nomina- 
tion of  Chief  Justice  Chase,  on  a  platform  of  principles 
prescribed  by  himself  and  with  a  candidate  for  vice-presi- 
dent his  equal  in  character,  as  an  "  event  of  first-rate  im- 

1  New  York  Herald,  March  12,  1868. 

1  New  York  Sun,  July  7,  1868. 

•New  York  Times,  June  I,  1868;  June  8,  12,  16,  1868. 


326        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [326 

portance  in  our  political  history."  x  Should  this  event  occur 
it  would  mean  a  dissolution  of  parties  and  a  revision  on  new 
doctrines.2 

Theodore  Tilton  had  been  Chase's  most  energetic  friend 
in  urging  upon  the  Republicans  his  nomination  for  the 
Presidency  until  the  latter's  change  to  the  Conservatives 
over  impeachment3  In  spite  of  the  Independent's  deser- 
tion of  Chase  in  favor  of  Grant  as  the  Republican  candi- 
date, Tilton  continued  to  believe  in  Chase  as  Presidential 
timber,4  considering  him  the  best  man  in  the  East  for  the 
Democrats.  Tilton's  quixotic  attitude  towards  Chase  fur- 
nished Dana  with  a  bit  of  ironic  amusement.  "  Wouldn't 
it  be  funny  if,  after  Theodore  Tilton's  failure  to  nominate 
Judge  Chase  as  the  Republican  candidate,  he  should  suc- 
ceed in  procuring  his  nomination  as  the  champion  of  the 
Democrats."  5 

Dana,  nevertheless,  favored  Chase  for  the  Democratic 
nomination  until  shortly  before  the  convention.6    Thurlow 

1  New  York  Evening  Post,  June  9,  1868. 

3  Ibid.     The  Independent,  May  21,  1868:  also  held  the  same  view. 

8  The  Independent,  May  28,  1868.  "  Half  a  year  ago  we  urged  the 
Republican  party  to  nominate  Mr.  Chase,  who  was  then  a  Radical, 
rather  than  Gen.  Grant,  who  was  then  a  Conservative.  Since  then — 
Gen.  Grant  has  become  a  Radical,  and  Mr.  Chase  a  Conservative. 
Nor  is  it  improbable  that  the  two  opposing  candidates  in  the  en- 
suing campaign  will  be  Grant  and  Chase — the  one  representing  the 
Radical  Republicans,  and  the  other  Conservative  Democracy.  Verily 
this  is  a  changeful  world!  Long  a  partisan  of  Chase,  never  a 
partisan  of  Grant,  we  frankly  avow  that  since  these  two  men  have 
so  signally  changed  places  we  now  a  thousand  times  prefer  Grant 
to  Chase." 

Tilton  made  the  severest  criticism  on  Chase  because  of  his  supposed 
endeavors  to  defeat  impeachment.     The  Independent,  May  21,  1868. 

*  The  Independent,  May  28,  1868;  July  16,  1868. 

6  New  York  Sun,  May  25,  1868. 

6  Ibid.,  May  23,  1868 ;  June  9,  16,  1868. 


327]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  327 

Weed,  whose  favorite  editorial  diversion  was  to  attack  other 
papers,  especially  the  Tribune,  gave  sufficient  space  to  decry 
thoroughly  Chase's  nomination  by  any  party.1  Greeley, 
who  always  enjoyed  displaying  his  appreciation  of  Hor- 
atio Seymour,  as  "  a  cool,  wily,  ingenious  master  of  the  art 
of  squirting  oratorical  vitriol,"  2  appeared  to  consider  him 
as  an  active  candidate,  especially  after  the  latter's  speech  of 
June  25th.  The  hopes  of  Chase  had  been  blasted  by  the 
"  Southern  Bourbons  ".3 

James  Gordon  Bennett  believed  that  Chase  should  be 
chosen,  first  in  order  to  insure  a  civil,  rather  than  a  military 
government,4  and  second,  because  he  would  not  be  the  tool 
of  a  legislative  clique.5  For  precisely  the  same  reason,  the 
World  did  not  favor  Chase.  Although  it  admired  Chase 
for  sticking  to  his  principles,  the  World  did  not  think  that 
he  would  receive  the  nomination  or  that  if  he  did  he  would 
consider  himself  bound  by  the  convention.8 

Most  of  the  leading  Democratic  journals  in  the  country 
were  as  disgusted  with  Chief  Justice  Chase  because  of  his 
Presidential  mania,  as  were  his  former  Republican  col- 
leagues. The  general  editorial  attitude  towards  him  im- 
presses one  with  the  feeling  that  he  had  committed  a  for- 
gery or  a  graver  felony.7 

1  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  June  10,  1868;  June  II,  1868. 
■  New  York  Tribune,  June  26,  1868.  » Ibid. 

4  New  York  Herald,  June  16,  1868. 

6  Ibid.,  June   1,   1868. 

•  New  York  World,  June  15,  20,  1868. 

7  The  leading  sectional  papers  of  Democratic  faith,  which  denounced 
the  Chase  movement  in  unqualified  terms  were:  Chicago  Times; 
Des  Moines  (la.)  Statesman;  Columbus  Statesman  (Ohio  organ  of 
Democracy)  ;  Wilmington  (N.  C.)  lournal;  National  Intelligencer 
(Washington,  D.  C.)  ;  Lancaster  (Pa.)  Intelligencer  (Buchanan's 
mou'hpiece  until  death)  ;  Charleston  (S.  C.)  Mercury.  Referred  to 
in  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  June   13,   1868. 


328        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [328 

During  the  formative  period  of  Democratic  ideas  on  the 
Presidency  there  appeared  to  be  an  intangible  yet  actual 
conflict  between  the  East  and  the  West.  In  the  West  the 
followers  of  Pendleton  were  opposed  to  Chase  and  Sey- 
mour, the  former  because  of  his  past  associations  and  the 
latter  because  of  his  failure  to  stand  for  Pendleton's 
theories  of  finance.  In  the  East  after  the  Chase  movement 
had  passed  its  zenith,  the  eyes  of  practically  all  were  cen- 
tered upon  Seymour  as  a  fighting  hope.  As  the  hounds 
rally  to  the  cry,  so  did  the  opposition  press,  the  more  Sey- 
mour declined  to  be  considered  a  candidate.  The  question 
was  repeatedly  asked  by  the  opposition :  "  Will  they  fall 
back  on  Seymour,  the  old  political  hack,  who  with  char- 
acteristic calculating  modesty  has  already  repeatedly  re- 
fused in  advance  the  barren  honors  of  nomination?  "  x 

Seymour's  address  before  the  Democrats  of  New  York 
City  on  June  25th  was  variously  construed.  In  his  speech 
he  urged  upon  the  Democracy  that  victory  could  be  had 
only  under  Chase.2  Seymour  on  this  occasion  definitely 
distinguished  between  his  own  and  Pendleton's  ideas  on 
national  finance.  The  latter's  plan  called  for  a  redemption 
of  the  fourteen  hundred  millions  of  government  five-twenty 
bonds  in  paper.  Its  aim  was  to  force  the  bond  holders  to 
take  their  chances  with  the  poor  classes.  On  the  other 
hand,  Seymour  advocated  the  theory  that  nothing  should 
be  done  to  depreciate  the  value  of  the  government  bonds. 
He  stated  that  deposits  in  savings  banks,  approximating  five 
hundred  millions,  and  in  life  insurance,  twelve  hundred 
fifty  millions,  would  be  endangered  if  their  securities, 
namely,  government  bonds,  were  not  paid,  or  paid  in  a  de- 
based currency.8 

1  Broome  Weekly  Republican,  May  27,  1868. 

*  New  York  Herald,  June  26,  1868;  The  Independent,  July  9,  1868. 

»  New  York  Herald,  June  26,  1868. 


329]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  329 

The  Herald  x  and  the  Tribune  2  both  accused  Seymour  of 
feigning  to  refuse  the  crown  that  he  might  the  more  safely 
clutch  it.  But  he  was  not  to  be  left  without  those  who  be- 
lieved in  his  sincerity.  Theodore  Tilton  took  Seymour  at 
his  word  and  predicted  that  his  refusal  would  produce  a 
party  split.3  The  Evening  Post  likened  Seymour's  speech 
to  an  attorney  who,  having  retained  an  eminent  counsel, 
was  told  by  him  that  "  the  case  is  fatally  weak."  .  .  . 
Then  abuse  the  other  side,  replied  the  ready-witted  attor- 
ney. The  World  commended  Seymour's  address  but  re- 
fused to  be  drawn  out  on  its  preference  for  the  Democratic 
nominee.4  Yet  it  warned  the  extremists  against  the  fool- 
hardiness  of  foisting  upon  the  party,  candidates  and  a  plat- 
form which  would  not  be  acceptable  to  the  majority  e  or 
would  force  a  departure  from  the  old-established  principles 
of  Democracy.6 

1  New  York  Herald,  June  26,  27,  1868.  The  Herald  on  July  3,  1868, 
however  purported  to  take  Seymour's  refusal  seriously.  "  Mr.  Seymour 
we  consider,  in  good  faith,  out  of  the  fight  as  a  candidate,  but  in  it 
as  an  active  worker  for  Chase." 

8  New  York  Tribune,  June  26— July  6,  1868. 

•  The  Independent,  July  9,  16,  1868. 

*  New  York  World,  June  26,  1868. 

B  Ibid ,  June  3,  1868.  The  World  believed  that  the  following  doc- 
trines should  be  incorporated  in  the  Democratic  platform: 

1.  Residuary  powers  of  the  State  governments  to  remain  according 
to  Constitution. 

2.  The  National  Debt 

(a)  was  lawful  and  should  be  upheld  by  the  full  taxing  power. 

(b)  should  be  handled  with  discrimination. 

(c)  should  be  paid  as  creditors  have  naturally  construed  it. 

3.  Instant  retrenchment  imperative. 

4.  Specie  should  be  the  basis  of  the  national  currency,  but  paper 
money  was  necessary  until  the  abnormal  condition  of  the  coun- 
try's finance  was  counteracted. 

5.  Low  tariff. 

6  If  Pendleton  were  followed,  Democracy  would  have  to  break  with 
its  ancient  hard-money  policy.  If  Chase  were  followed  negro  suffrage 
would  be  endorsed,  which  would  also  be  too  violent  an  innovation 
to  be  accomplished  by  a  bare  majority.     New  York  World,  July  2,  1868. 


330        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [330 

That  the  Democratic  situation  was  grave  and  called  for 
skilled  treatment  was  apparently  appreciated  by  the  dele- 
gates as  they  gathered  in  New  York  City  during  the  first 
days  of  July.  The  World  let  no  opportunity  escape  to  cau- 
tion moderation.1  Contrary  to  the  situation  at  Chicago, 
the  battle  of  intrigue,  cliques  and  sectional  animosities  was 
waged  around  the  Presidential  nomination,  with  the  plat- 
form for  an  immediate  background.  The  list  of  Presi- 
dential candidates  from  which  the  nomination  was  to  be 
made  included  the  following  names:  Salmon  P.  Chase,  of 
Ohio,  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States,  ex-Governor  of 
Ohio,  Democratic-Republican,  Independent,  negro  suffra- 
gist; Horatio  Seymour,  of  New  York,  anti-war  Democrat, 
ex-Governor  of  New  York,  ancient  leader  of  Democracy, 
Democratic  bondholders'  candidate;  George  H.  Pendleton, 
of  Ohio,  Copperhead,  candidate  for  Vice-Presidency  under 
McClellan  in  1864,  whose  motto  was  "  Greenbacks  for  the 
bondholders  " ;  Thomas  A.  Hendricks,  of  Indiana,  "  a  sec- 
ond edition  of  poor  Pierce  " ; 2  General  Winfield  Scott  Han- 
cock, of  Pennsylvania,  the  soldiers'  candidate,  representa- 
tive of  the  Conservatives,  President  Johnson's  favorite  mili- 
tary man,  "  because  he  is  more  a  soldier  of  the  George 
Washington  type  than  any  other  officer  in  the  army  " ; 3 
General  George  B.  McClellan,  of  New  Jersey,  unrequited 
disciple  of  Fabius  the  Cunctator,  leader  of  the  movement 
which  carried  the  States  of  New  Jersey,  Kentucky  and 
Delaware  against  Abraham  Lincoln  in  1864;  Reverdy 
Johnson,  of  Maryland,  conservative,  Minister  to  England, 
whose  vote  in  favor  of  the  Congressional  military  system 
in  the  South  disqualified  him  with  the  Western  Bourbons; 
and  last  but  foremost  in  the  opinion  of  his  seconds,  Andrew 

1  New  York  World,  July  1,  2,  1868. 

*  New  York  Herald,  July  3,  1868.  ■  Ibid. 


33 1  ]         NA  TIONAL  NOMINA  TING  CONVENTIONS  33 1 

Johnson,  of  Tennessee  and  the  White  House,  ex-tailor,  ex- 
Union  State  Governor  of  Tennessee,  ex-Congressman,  ex- 
Vice-President  of  the  United  States  and  chief  exponent  in 
the  arena  of  "  My  Policy  ". 

Prior  to  the  convention  two  other  names  l  had  been  men- 
tioned more  or  less  extensively  in  connection  with  the 
Democratic  Presidential  nomination.  After  Admiral  Far- 
Tagut  had  refused  to  have  his  name  considered  as  a  possi- 
bility before  the  Chicago  Convention,  certain  enterprising 
Democrats,  thinking  that  he  was  out  of  harmony  with  the 
Radicals,  had  written  to  him  in  Europe  asking  him  to  run 
on  the  Democratic  ticket.  Could  Farragut  be  enticed  thus, 
it  was  thought  that  his  still  great  popularity  as  the  hero  of 
Mobile  would  be  able  to  counteract  the  popularity  of  Grant, 
minus  the  general  disgust  over  the  work  of  Congress  in 
the  South.2  However,  Farragut  upset  their  fond  delusion 
by  a  peremptory  refusal,  stating  that  the  honor  which  he 
had  already  received  he  considered  far  more  than  he 
merited. 

On  June  30,  1868,  General  Francis  P.  Blair,  of  Missouri, 
wrote  to  Colonl  James  O.  Broadhead  relative  to  the  use  of 
the  former's  name  before  the  New  York  Convention.  The 
feasibility  of  Blair's  acceptance  was  vitiated  by  the  manly 

1  Twelve  other  names  received  considerable  mention  among  their 
friends,  as  the  balloting  proved.  Of  these  Charles  Francis  Adams, 
Minister  to  Great  Britain  during  the  War,  alone  received  no  votes 
in  the  convention.  New  York  Times,  July  3rd,  1868.  New  York 
Evening  Post,  July  3,  1868. 

The  other  names  were  Sanford  E.  Church,  of  New  York;  Asa 
Packer,  Joel  Parker,  and  James  E.  English,  each  respectively  Gov- 
ernor, of  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey-and  Connecticut ;  Senator  Doolittle, 
of  Wisconsin;  General  Thomas  B.  Ewing,  of  Kansas;  ex-President 
Franklin  Pierce;  Mayor  Hoffman,  of  New  York  City;  Justice  S.  J. 
Field,  of  California,  and  Mr.  T.  H.  Seymour,  of  Minnesota. 

1  New  York  Times,  July  3,  1868. 


332        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [332 

stand  1  he  took  in  stating  his  exact  views  on  the  national 
situation,  1.  e.,  that  the  work  of  the  Radical  Congress  was 
unconstitutional  and  that  the  new  President,  if  Democratic, 
should  declare  the  acts  of  Congress  "  null  and  void,  compel 
the  army  to  undo  its  usurpations  at  the  South,  disperse  the 
carpet-bag  State  governments,  allow  the  white  people  to 
reorganize  their  own  government  and  elect  Senators  and 
Representatives."  2  These  doctrines  were,  of  course,  too 
radical  for  the  Democrats  to  hope  for  victory,  hence  the 
dropping  of  Blair's  name  from  consideration. 

The  above  names,  aside  from  those  of  Chase,  Seymour 
and  Pendleton,  were  ultimately  used  in  a  game  of  chess 
played  for  the  benefit  of  the  three  leading  candidates.  Gen- 
eral Hancock  was  looked  upon  as  the  possible  dark  horse 
of  the  convention,  in  the  event  of  a  protracted  tie.3  Even 
the  bravest,  outside  of  the  immediate  coterie  of  the  Presi- 
dent's admirers,  were  fearful  of  trusting  Democracy  into 
the  unyielding  hands  of  Johnson.  Seymour  was  the  dis- 
turbing element  of  the  convention.  With  the  80,000  odd 
Democratic  voters  of  New  York  City,  and  the  New  York 
delegation  in  his  favor,  together  with  his  party  prominence, 
he  was  a  factor  to  be  constantly  considered,  regardless  of 
his  protests  immediately  before  the  convention.  The  dele- 
gates from  the  East  and  South  appeared  to  incline  towards 
Chase.4    From  the  West  and  Southwest,  the  delegates  were 

1  See  Radical  papers  on  Blair's  letter.  Violent  was  the  mildest  term 
applied  to  it.  New  York  Times,  July  9,  1868.  New  York  Tribune, 
July  4-6,  1868. 

2  Letter  from  Francis  P.  Blair  to  James  O.  Broadhead,  Washington, 
D.  C.    New  York  Sun,  July  3,  1868. 

•  New  York  Times,  July  5,  1868.  The  Times  looked  on  Chase  as  the 
probable  compromise   candidate. 

4  New  York  Times,  July  6,  1868;  New  York  Herald,  July  3,  1868; 
New  York  Times,  July  5,  1868.  The  Times  was  unkind  enough  to 
hint  that  a  large  part  of  Chase's  strength  in  the  convention  would  be 


333]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  333 

united  for  Pendleton  and  claimed  a  majority  in  the  con- 
vention. 

Had  "  the  time-honored  principles  of  the  Democratic 
party"  been  rigidly  adhered  to,  the  suggestion  of  Francis 
P.  Blair,  that  the  acts  of  Congress  on  Reconstruction  were 
unconstitutional,  might  have  prevailed.  This  would  have 
entailed  the  repudiation  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  and 
a  number  of  the  acts  of  the  President  and  Congress,  at 
least  from  Appomattox.  To  prevent  such  a  calamity  to 
the  Democrats,  the  Herald,  on  July  3rd,  urgently  advocated 
Chase,1  who  was  represented  as  the  embodiment  of  consti- 
tutional law  against  military  dominance.  If  the  Democrats 
would  accept  the  constitutional  amendments  and  Chase  as 
a  candidate,  it  was  believed  that  they  would  win.2  The  war 
record  of  Chase  was  strong  and  clear  as  the  financial  chief 
who  had  made  Grant's  victories  possible. 

In  reading  the  newspaper  files  on  the  Democratic  con- 
vention, one  is  impressed  with  the  fact  that  there  existed 
among  the  delegates  gathered  at  New  York  a  general  sen- 
timent that  the  Democrats  must  go  forward  and  accept  new 
conditions.8  The  Herald  voiced  this  sentiment  on  the  eve 
of  the  convention,  as  a  last  admonition.  "  The  talk  we 
hear  of  the  '  time-honored  principles  of  the  Democratic 
party  '  is  all  clap-trap  and  moonshine.     There  has  been  a 

based  upon  the  power  of  money  as  a  potent  agent  for  conversion 
and  reconciliation.  But  the  operation  of  the  convention  proved  this 
charge  absolutely  false,  a  fact  which  does  not  reflect  pleasantly  upon 
the  Times. 

The  Herald  called  for  the  following  planks  in  the  Democratic 
platform:  acceptance  of  the  amendments,  payment  of  the  nat'onal 
debt  according  to  the  law,  taxation  of  the  bondholders  on  principles 
of  equal  rights. 

1  New  York  Herald,  July  3,  1868.  2  Ibid. 

•  New  York  Tribune,  July  4,  1868;  New  York  World,  July  3,  1868; 
New  York  Sun,  July  3,  1868. 


334        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [334 

deluge;  the  face  of  the  political  world  is  changed.  There 
has  been  a  great  revolution.  We  are  entering  upon  a  new- 
epoch.  Old  things  must  be  done  away  with,  and  the  De- 
mocracy must  keep  pace  with  the  march  of  events  or  they 
will  be  broken  up,  routed  and  scattered  to  the  winds."  x 

The  convention  assembled  on  July  4,  1868,  in  the  new 
Tammany  wigwam  on  East  Fourteenth  Street,  which  with 
its  gala  trappings  and  at  that  time  distinctive  proportions, 
made  a  picture  which  might  well  have  pleased  delegates 
and  citizens  alike.  Perhaps  the  latter  would  not  have  en- 
joyed the  spectacle  so  much  had  they  realized  that  Republi- 
cans and  Democrats  alike  had  unknowingly  contributed  to 
its  erection.2  Many  of  the  delegates  as  they  gathered  on 
this  Fourth  of  July  considered  it  a  day  which  would  mark 
a  new  political  epoch.  The  road  appeared  to  divide  in 
two  directions,  one  leading  under  Chase  to  victory  and  a 
political  revolution,  the  other  under  Pendleton  either  to  the 
disruption  of  the  convention  and  the  party,  as  at  Charleston 
in  i860,  or  to  a  crushing  defeat  at  the  polls.  One  Eastern 
delegate,  General  John  L.  Swift,  naval  officer  at  Boston,  de- 
clared before  the  convention  met  that  the  nomination  of 
Pendleton  would  practically  turn  the  convention  into  a 
Grant  ratification  meeting.3  This  sentiment,  while  perhaps 
extreme,  gives  an  approximate  idea  as  to  the  Eastern  Demo- 
cratic attitude  towards  Pendleton. 

Mr.  August  Belmont,  chairman  of  the  Democratic  na- 
tional executive  committee,  called  the  convention  to  order 
at  12:15,  Saturday,  July  4th.  In  a  short  speech  he  pro- 
posed Mr.  H.  Palmer,  of  Wisconsin,  as  temporary  chair- 

1  New  York  Herald,  July  3,  1868.  The  Brooklyn  Eagle,  the  Kings 
County  organ  of  the  Democrats  expressed  the  same  idea  editorially. 
Cf.  New  York  Herald,  quotation,  July  4,  1868. 

1  Gustavus  Meyers,  History  of  Tammany  Hall,  passim. 

8  New  York  Herald,  July  4,  1868. 


335]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  335 

man  of  the  convention,  who  was  received  with  cheers  and 
made  a  brief  address  pleading  for  harmony.  The  prelimi- 
nary test  of  strength  came  over  the  adoption  of  a  resolu- 
tion offered  by  General  McCook,  of  Ohio,  which  called  for 
the  use  of  the  rules  of  the  House  of  Representatives  during 
the  temporary  organization.  After  considerable  sparring 
between  General  McCook,  Governor  Richardson,  of  Illi- 
nois, Francis  Keman,  of  New  York,  "  Sunset  "  Cox,  of 
New  York,  Erastus  Brooks,  of  the  New  York  Express,  and 
Mr.  Green,  of  Indiana,  the  resolution  was  modified  so  as  to 
call  for  the  house  rules  in  use  before  i860,  plus  an  amend- 
ment which  called  for  the  rules  which  governed  the  last 
Democratic  National  Convention.1  The  amendment  and 
resolution  were  then  carried,2  to  the  chagrin  of  Pendleton's 
supporters,  who  had  hoped  to  nominate  him  on  a  simple 
majority.  The  appointment  of  committees  was  the  only 
other  business  of  importance  on  the  first  day.  The  adjourn- 
ment was  taken  until  ten  o'clock  on  the  following  Monday, 
with  the  evident  hope  on  the  part  of  all  that  the  excessive 
hot  wave 8  which  existed  would  sufficiently  melt  the  dispo- 
sitions of  the  belligerent  delegates,  so  that  the  work  of  the 
convention  might  be  brief. 

Over  Sunday  the  Herald  and  the  Sun  continued  to  advo- 
cate Chase,  publishing  quantities  of  letters  from  the  South 
and  West  tending  to  show  that  he  was  the  people's  choice.4 
However,  the  press  elsewhere  was  beginning  to  voice  a  sen- 

1  New  York  World,  July  5,  1868;  New  York  Sun,  July  6,  1868. 

*  The  cause  of  the  trouble  was  the  question  of  the  two-thirds  rule, 
which  was  finally  accepted  on  the  matter  of  voting  for  the  Presidency. 
The  Pendleton  men  were  opposed,' having  hoped  to  avoid  the  two- 
thirds  rule  in  the  permanent  organization,  by  paving  the  way  with  a 
simple  majority  rule  in  the  temporary  organization. 

8  Thermometer  was  at  oo°  in  shade. 

4  New  York  Herald,  July  5,  1868;  New  York  Sun,  July  4,  1868. 


336        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [336 

timent  among  the  delegates  which  boded  ill  for  Chase.  The 
Toledo  (Ohio)  Blade  doubted  whether  Chase  would  even 
receive  a  complimentary  vote  and  stated  that  if  Pendleton 
were  defeated,  the  Western  men  would  defeat  Seymour 
and  thus  force  another  Polk  or  Pierce.1 

Pendleton  found  it  difficult  to  hide  his  light  under  a 
bushel.  Banquo's  ghost  would  appear.  Lest  the  delegates 
should  forget,  choice  bits  of  Pendleton's  speech  in  Congress 
in  1 86 1  on  the  Crittenden  Resolution  2  were  furnished  by 
the  papers.3    A  morsel  follows: 

If  these  Southern  States  cannot  be  consolidated,  and  if  you 
gentlemen  cannot  find  it  in  your  heart  to  grant  their  demands — 
if  they  must  leave  the  family  mansion — I  would  signalize  their 
departure  by  tokens  of  love;  I  would  bid  them  farewell  so 
tenderly  they  would  forever  be  touched  by  the  recollection 
of  it.  .  .  .4 

Monday  morning  found  the  excitement  on  the  increase. 
After  a  delegation  from  the  Workingmen's  Convention 
were  given  seats  on  motion  of  General  Morgan,  of  Ohio, 
Mr.  Clymer,  from  the  committee  on  permanent  organiza- 
tion, reported  Horatio  Seymour  for  president.  Among  the 
vice-presidents,  one  for  each  State,  the  name  of  William 
M.  Tweed,  of  New  York,  shone  with  particular  brilliancy. 

1  Toledo  Blade,  editorial  quoted  in  New  York  Herald,  July  5,  1868. 

1  Senator  Crittenden,  of  Kentucky,  advocated  by, 

8  New  York  Herald,  July  5,  1868. 

4  New  York  Herald,  July  5,  1868.  Other  items  from  this  address 
were:  "Sir,  you  will  not  collect  one  dollar  of  revenue — not  one 
dollar  [from  the  seceded  States].  Sir,  the  whole  scheme  of 
coercion  is  impracticable.  It  is  contrary  to  the  genius  and  spirit 
of  the  constitution.  If  the  federal  government  had  the  physical 
power  it  might  overrun  and  subdue  a  State;  it  nvght  subjugate  and 
take  possession  of  it,  and  then  by  federal  agents,  administer  the 
State  government — but  it  would  not  be  the  government  of  this  con- 
stitution." 


337]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  337 

Governor  Seymour  was  escorted  to  the  chair  by  Gover- 
nor Bigler,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Governor  Hammond,  of 
South  Carolina.  The  ensemble  must  have  been  pleasing, 
one  from  the  hot-house  of  secession  and  state  rights,  an- 
other from  the  home  of  Radicalism,  and  the  third,  the 
chief  of  anti-war  Democrats.  Seymour's  address  disclosed 
nothing  new.  The  burden  of  it  was  to  urge  patriotism,  as 
against  sectionalism,  in  party  conventions.  His  text  might 
well  have  been  the  Biblical  doctrine,  "  Judge  not  that  ye  be 
not  judged."  Yet,  Radicalism  must  be  denounced,  repudia- 
tion of  the  national  debt  was  heresy,  and  a  strict  interpre- 
tation of  the  constitution  the  only  protection  against  mili- 
tary absolution.1  Seymour's  popularity  was  manifested 
by  the  almost  constant  applause  with  which  his  address  was 
received.  The  remainder  of  the  morning  session  was  con- 
sumed with  the  reception  of  resolutions  which  were  referred 
to  the  committee  on  resolutions.2 

Upon  the  adjournment  of  the  convention  on  the  second 
day  without  either  a  platform  or  a  candidate,  those  who 
had  been  working  for  harmony  apparently  realized  the  end. 
The  convention  appeared  to  be  in  a  fog.8     The  failure  of 

1  New  York  World,  July  7,  1868. 

1 A  lengthy  resolution  was  received  and  read,  to  the  amusement 
of  the  convention,  from  Elizabeth  Cady  Stanton,  Mrs.  Horace 
Greeley,  Susan  B.  Anthony  and  Abby  Hopper  Gibbons,  central  com- 
mittee for  the  Woman's  Suffrage  Association  of  America. 

•  New  York  World,  July  6,  7,  8,  1868.  In  keeping  with  the  pro- 
cedure at  the  Chicago  Convention,  the  Soldiers'  and  Sailors'  of 
Democratic  persuasion  held  a  convention  in  New  York  City  at  the 
Moffat  Mansion,  Union  Square,  on  Monday,  July  6th.  General 
Franklin,  of  Connecticut,  was  chairman..  The  main  business  of  this 
convention  was  to  draw  up  an  address  to  the  National  Convention. 
This  address  was  a  violent  arraignment  of  the  Radicals  and  urged 
greenbacks  for  the  bond-holders.  Generals  Slocum,  Gordon  Granger, 
Thomas  Ewing  and  J.  A.  McClernand  acted  as  a  committee  to  ad- 
dress the  National  Convention. 


338        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [338 

Pendleton's  supporters  to  force  the  issue  upon  the  even- 
ing of  the  first  day  or  upon  the  morning  of  the  second  day, 
when  they  were  by  far  the  strongest,  gave  their  disorgan- 
ized opponents  opportunity  to  unite  which  meant  defeat  for 
Pendleton.1  Already,  before  any  results  had  accrued,  the 
finger  of  reproach  was  being  pointed  towards  the  New 
York  delegation.  The  game  as  they  played  it  was  natur- 
ally not  discovered  in  all  its  details  until  the  convention 
had  adjourned.  However,  on  Monday  it  looked  as  if  San- 
ford  E.  Church,  who  had  sprung  Tammany's  clever  coup 
d'etat  on  the  unsuspecting  convention  of  1866,2  would  be 
played  by  the  New  York  delegation  for  the  Presidency,  ap- 
parently to  displace  Chase,  but  in  reality  to  take  attention 
away  from  Seymour  until  the  proper  time  for  him  to 
stampede  the  convention. 

The  Herald  contemptuously  spoke  of  Church  as  a  "coun- 
try lawyer  and  Albany  accountant."  3  He  was,  neverthe- 
less, a  man  of  considerable  ability,  young,  ambitious  and 
probably  honest  as  politicians  go.  He  later  was  rewarded 
by  Tammany  with  the  chief  judgeship  of  the  New  York 
Court  of  Appeals.  His  candidacy  appeared  serious  only 
because  of  the  strength  of  the  New  York  delegation  and 
the  known  possibilities  of  a  stampede.  The  World,  while 
claiming  to  stand  for  no  candidate,  gave  Church's  candi- 
dacy strong  support,  in  view  of  the  apparent  unavailability 
of  Seymour.  It  urged  that  the  only  objection  which  could 
be  raised  against  Church  was  his  lack  of  a  national  reputa- 
tion. This,  it  pointed  out,  was  more  than  overcome  by  his 
pre-eminent  abilities.4 

On  Monday  before  any  ballots  had  been  taken  the  Her- 

1  New  York  Sun,  July  6,  1868. 

2  Cf.  supra,  ch.  iv,  p.  102  et  seq. 

8  New  York  Herald,  July  7,  1868. 
*  New  York  World,  July  6,  1868. 


339]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  339 

aid,  to  all  intents,  admitted  that  its  efforts  for  Chase  in 
behalf  of  Democracy  had  been  futile.1 

The  truth  is,  the  New  York  democracy  have  broken  faith  with 
the  conservative  masses,  and  have  shown  themselves  to  be 
without  intelligence  to  grasp  the  situation  or  courage  to  indi- 
cate their  own  position.  Beginning  with  Hoffman,  and  con- 
tinuing on  through  Seymour  and  Belmont  down  to  poor 
Church,  they  are  all  ignorant  of  the  great  lessons  of  the  past 
eight  years,  butting  their  copperheads  against  the  idea  that  the 
war  was  unconstitutional,  that  Lincoln  was  unconstitutional, 
that  Congress  was  unconstitutional,  and  that  there  is  nothing 
in  strict  conformity  with  the  constitution  except  Jeff.  Davis, 
General  Lee,  poor  Pierce,  and  the  old  democratic  organization, 
embracing  Tammany  Hall  and  the  Albany  Regency.  .  .  .  They 
do  not  recognize  the  fourteenth  amendment,  as  the  people  de- 
manded they  should,  nor  do  they  properly  denounce  the  bar- 
barism, brutality  and  degradation  of  negro  political  and  social 
equality  in  the  Southern  States.  They  are  bold  only  in  cheat- 
ing and  rascality,  and  timid  where  courage  is  a  virtue.  The 
result  will  be  that  after  exposing  their  own  weakness  and 
cowardice,  they  will'  become  parties  to  a  platform  as  unmean- 
ing as  that  of  the  mongrel  Chicago  Convention,  and  to  a  nomi- 
nation that  will  be  miserably  beaten  in  every  state  in  the 
Union.2 

The  third  day's  proceedings  of  the  convention  were 
marked  by  the  adoption  of  the  platform.8  This,  it  appears, 
received  the  unanimous  support  of  the  committee,  but  not 
until  serious  differences  of  opinion  had  been  overcome. 
The  first  and  second  planks  of  the  platform  called  for  the 

1  New  York  Evening  Post,  July  9,  1868.  Strange  as  it  may  seem  the 
Evening  Post  appears  to  have  believed  that  the  New  York  delegation 
was  using  Church  as  a  stalking  horse,  while  it  really  planned  to 
nominate  Chase. 

J  New  York  Herald,  July  7,  1868. 

■  New  York  World,  July  8,  1868. 


340        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [34q 

immediate  restoration  of  all  states  to  their  rights  in  the 
Union,  amnesty  for  all  political  offenses  and  the  regulation 
of  the  franchise  in  each  State  by  its  respective  citizens.  In 
the  next  four  resolutions  the  following  points  were  advo- 
cated: the  payment  of  the  public  debt,  as  rapidly  as  pos- 
sible, with  all  funds  drawn  from  the  people ;  equal  taxation 
of  every  kind  of  property,  including  public  securities  and 
government  bonds;  one  currency  for  all;  and  economy  in 
the  administration  of  the  government.  Under  the  head  of 
economy  demands  were  made  for  a  reduction  of  the  army 
and  navy,  for  the  repeal  of  enactments  recalling  the  State 
militia  into  the  national  forces  in  time  of  peace,  a  tariff  for 
revenue  only,  abolition  of  the  industrial  modes  of  assess- 
ing and  collecting  internal  revenue  and  the  abolition  of  the 
Freedman's  Bureau  and  other  political  instrumentalities  de- 
signed to  secure  negro  supremacy.  The  seventh  plank 
urged  reform  of  abuses  in  administration,  the  subordina- 
tion of  the  military  power  to  the  civil  power,  the  expulsion 
of  corrupt  men  from  office  and  the  return  to  the  ancient  in- 
dependence of  the  judicial  and  executive  departments  of 
the  government.  The  eighth  and  last  resolution  declared 
for  the  equal  rights  and  protection  of  naturalized  as  well  as 
native-born  American  citizens  at  home  and  abroad. 

In  conjunction  with  these  resolutions  the  Republicans 
were  impeached  for  the  violation  of  their  Congressional 
pledge  to  pursue  the  War  for  the  sake  of  the  Union,  not 
for  party  aggrandizement.  The  nullification  of  the  right 
of  trial  by  jury,  of  habeas  corpus,  of  the  freedom  of  speech 
and  of  the  press,  of  the  presidential  constitutional  power 
of  appointment,  and  the  institution  of  arbitrary  seizures 
and  star-chamber  methods,  were  chief  among  the  articles 
of  impeachment  charged  against  the  Republican  party. 
The  platform  when  presented  to  the  convention  was  re- 
ceived in  toto  with  the  usual  enthusiasm.1 

1  New  York  World,  July  8,  1868. 


34 1  ]         NA  TIONAL  NOMINA  TING  CONVENTIONS  34 j 

Before  proceeding  to  ballot,  Seymour  ruled  that,  un- 
less objections  were  at  hand,  the  i860  rule  would  be  fol- 
lowed, i.  e.,  no  nomination  until  a  vote  equal  to  two-thirds 
of  the  vote  of  the  electoral  college  had  been  cast  for  a  candi- 
date.1 It  required  twenty-two  ballots  to  select  the  candi- 
date for  President.  Chase  hardly  figured  in  the  balloting. 
The  names  of  Hendricks,  Hancock  and  Pendleton  proved 
to  be  the  fighting  centers.  On  the  eighth  ballot  New  York 
began  to  show  its  hand  by  dropping  Church  and  voting 
solid  for  Hendricks,  for  whom  it  continued  to  vote  until 
the  twenty-second  ballot.  It  would  seem,  viewed  in  the 
light  of  later  events,  that  the  New  York  delegation,  after 
seeing  the  futility  of  using  Church  for  the  purpose,  hit  upon 
Hendricks  as  a  candidate  of  sufficient  strength  to  balk  the 
nomination  of  another  until,  the  convention  having  become 
weary,  the  psychological  moment  arrived  to  bring  forth  its 
real  candidate,  Horatio  Seymour.  On  the  fourth  ballot 
Seymour's  name  had  been  proposed,  but  he  absolutely  re- 
fused to  permit  its  use.  But  on  the  twenty-second  ballot 
Ohio  started  a  landslide  for  Seymour  by  giving  him  its 
solid  vote.2  Seymour  again  refused  to  permit  the  use  of 
his  name.  However,  the  tide  was  too  strong  to  be  stopped. 
The  final  result  of  the  twenty-second  ballot  gave  Horatio 
Seymour  every  vote  of  the  convention,  317. 

Due  to  the  protracted  struggle  over  the  Presidential 
nomination  all  hands  appeared  anxious  to  end  the  conven- 
tion, hence  the  nomination  of  a  vice-president  gave 
little  trouble.  When  the  name  of  General  Francis  P. 
Blair,8  of  Missouri,  was  proposed,  the  popular  chord  of  the 

1  New  York  World,  July  10,  1868 ;  New  York  Tribune,  July  10,  1868. 

•New  York  World,  July  8,  1868.  It  was  claimed  that  Tilden 
through  a  bargain  with  certain  leading  members  of  the  Ohio  dele- 
gation induced  it  to  lead  the  movement  for  Seymour.  See  Alexander, 
A  Political  History  of  the  State  of  New  York,  vol.  iii,  p.  203. 

•  General  Blair  did  good  service  in  the  field  under  Grant  around 


342        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [342 

convention  seemed  to  be  touched  and  his  election  was  made 
unanimous  at  the  end  of  the  first  roll  call.1 

Seymour  accepted  the  nomination  on  the  following  even- 
ing. He  stated  to  the  meeting  that  he  found  himself  un- 
able to  resist  "  the  overwhelming  tide  that  is  bearing  us  on 
to  a  great  political  change."  2  Samuel  J.  Tilden  was  ac- 
cused of  having  conspired  to  nominate  Seymour  from  the 
start.  Tilden,  however,  wrote  a  letter  denying  the  frequent 
imputations  that  he  was  responsible  for  Seymour's  nomi- 
nation, although  admitting  that  he  would  have  been  glad 
of  it  had  the  nominee  been  willing.5  An  interesting  side 
light  is  thrown  by  Gideon  Welles  on  Tilden's  part  in  the 
nomination  of  Seymour,  which  affords  a  possible  clue  to 
Tilden's  course  in  the  convention.     Welles  wrote: 

Blair  tells  me  that  Samuel  Tilden  wanted  to  be  the  candidate 
of  the  Democrats  for  President.  It  is  hardly  credible,  and  yet 
in  that  way,  better  than  any  other,  can  his  conduct  and  that 
of  the  New  York  Democratic  politicians  be  accounted  for.  He 
and  they  had  professedly  no  candidate — could  name  none — 
were,  while  holding  the  reins,  as  meek  in  their  professions  as 
Uriah  Heep,  waiting  for  others  to  move,  and  similar  silly 
pretensions  were  made  when  the  country  was  in  agony.4 

The  Chief  Justice  must  have  felt  truly  grateful  to  the 

Vicksburg  and  under  General  Sherman  on  his  march  to  the  sea. 
Blair's  military  career  was  at  the  outset  threatened,  due  to  his  trouble 
with  General  Fremont  when  the  latter  commanded  the  Department 
of  Missouri.  Blair  came  from  pure  Democratic  stock,  but  he  had 
acted  with  the  Republicans  and  Unionists  from  1854  to  the  death  of 
Lincoln  from  which  time  he  had  followed  a  fitful  course. 

1  Other  names  proposed  were  General  McClernand,  General  Thomas 
B.  Ewing  and  Hon.  A.  K.  Dodge,  of  Iowa. 

1  New  York  Herald,  July  II,  1868. 

*  John  Bigelow,  The  Life  of  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  vol.  i,  pp.  211-212. 

4  The  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  vol.  iii,  p.  446. 


3431         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  343 

convention  for  its  kind  remembrance.  A  curious  chapter 
on  Chase  developed  Thursday,  July  9th,  the  last  day  of  the 
convention.  On  that  morning  Samuel  J.  Tilden  called  a 
meeting  of  the  New  York  delegation.1  Horatio  Seymour 
was  present  and  strongly  advocated  turning  the  sup- 
port of  New  York  from  Hendricks  to  Chase.  In  this 
he  was  bitterly  opposed  by  State  Senator  Murphy, 
of  Brooklyn,  who  defied  Seymour  to  name  any  States 
that  Chase  would  carry.  Seymour  stated  that  he  had 
consulted  with  various  of  the  western  and  central 
delegations  of  the  State  before  making  his  appeal  for 
Chase.  Murphy  was  forced  to  dodge  the  question  when 
Seymour  asked  if  his  home  city,  Brooklyn,  would  not  sup- 
port Chase.  The  four  district  delegates  from  Brooklyn 
stood  for  Chase.  General  John  A.  Green,  of  Onondaga, 
also  opposed  Chase,  but  Seymour  discounted  his  opposition 
by  showing  that  Onondaga  never  gave  a  Democratic  ma- 
jority. On  the  vote  Senator  Murphy  and  General  Green, 
aided  by  Albany  Democrats,  were  able  to  poll  27  votes 
for  Hendricks;  but  Seymour,  aided  by  Peter  B.  Sweeny 
and  the  solid  New  York  City  delegation,  except  John  Mor- 
rissey,  who  favored  Pendleton,  went  for  Chase,  giving  him 
36  votes.  It  was  thus  agreed  that  the  name  of  Chase 
should  be  placed  before  the  convention  that  morning  at  the 
earliest  possible  moment.  Precisely  why  this  was  not  done, 
does  not  appear.  The  failure  to  present  Chase's  name  may 
possibly  be  accounted  for  by  the  violent  opposition  with 
which  it  was  received  by  General  McCook,  of  the  Ohio 
delegation  when  sounded  on  the  matter.  A  minority  of  the 
Ohio  delegation,  including  Vallandigham,  however,  agreed 
to  stand  by  Chase,  as  did  a  considerable  number  of  the 
Pennsylvania  delegates.     It  would  seem  that  this  antici- 

1  New  York  Herald,  July  10,   1868.    Cf.  New  York  Evening  Post, 
July  9,  1868 ;  Cf.  New  York  Times,  July  9,  1868. 


344        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [344 

pated  move  in  favor  of  Chase  on  the  part  of  New  York 
had  a  direct  bearing  on  the  action  of  Ohio  in  attempting  to 
stampede  the  convention  for  Horatio  Seymour.  We  are 
led  to  believe  there  was  constant  double  dealing  on  the 
part  of  the  New  York  delegation.  Certainly  that  was  the 
distinct  opinion  which  prevailed  among  the  Southern  and 
Western  delegates.1 

The  New  York  Herald  was  inconsolable  over  its  failure 
to  nominate  Chase.  It  continued  to  think  that  the  majority 
of  the  independent  thinking  men  favored  Chase  and  that 
the  nomination  of  Seymour  was  the  result  of  trickery  at 
the  hands  of  Tammany  and  the  Albany  Regency.2  The 
nomination  of  Seymour  gave  Grant  the  election  ipso  facto.9 
Although  there  had  been  a  strong  movement  on  foot  to 
obliterate  the  old  party  lines  and  combine  the  several  con- 
servative elements  against  Radical  misrule,  the  nomina- 
tion of  Seymour,  thought  the  Herald,  resolved  the  contest 
into  a  choice  between  those  who  had  stood  for  Union  and 
those  who  had  supported  disunion.4 

The  World  cordially  indorsed  the  financial  part  of  the 
Democratic  platform  as  it  did  the  portion  relating  to  negro 
suffrage  and  Radical  Reconstruction.  But  it  called  the  tariff 
plank  of  the  platform  a  muddle.  It  failed  to  see  under  the 
wording  of  the  platform — "  a  tariff  for  revenue  upon  for- 
eign imports  and  such  equal  taxation  under  the  internal 
revenue  laws  as  will  afford  incidental  protection  to  domestic 
manufactures  " — how  internal  taxes  were  to  protect  with- 
out discriminating.5     Regarding  the  nomination  of  Sey- 

1  New  York  Times,  July  9,  1868 ;  New  York  Evening  Post,  July  9, 
1868;  New  York  Sun,  July  10,  1868.  The  Sun  spoke  of  Pendleton's 
being  crowded  from  the  field  as  illustrative  of  a  w  system  of  tactics 
that  has  hardly  a  parallel  in  the  annals  of  party  warfare." 

1  New  York  Herald,  July  10,  1868.  s  Ibid. 

*  Ibid.,  July  11,  1868. 

6  New  York  World,  July  8,  1868. 


345]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  345 

mour  and  Blair,  the  World  waxed  enthusiastic.  First,  Sey- 
mour was  the  greatest  statesman  of  the  Democratic  party; 
secondly,  he  had  a  strong  grasp  on  the  questions  which  re- 
lated to  the  strengthening  of  the  national  finances;  and 
lastly,  he  had  always  been  such  a  thorough  and  consistent 
Democrat,  and  his  party  popularity  and  influence  were  so 
great,  that  he  alone  possessed  the  requisite  moral  weight 
to  adapt  Democracy  to  the  altered  condition  of  the  country.1 

Assuming  for  the  moment  that  Seymour  had  been  elected 
in  1868,  the  logic  which  the  World  used  in  explaining  its 
opposition  to  Chase  appears  sound.  Had  the  Chief  Justice 
been  elected  he  would  have  been  regarded  as  a  renegade  by 
the  Senate,  and  the  Democrats  would  have  distrusted  him 
as  a  Radical.  Had  he  dared  to  make  the  necessary  conces- 
sions to  the  Radicals,  the  party  which  had  elected  him 
would  have  thought  him  false  to  his  principles.2  Seymour, 
even  though  he  had  advocated  the  nomination  of  Chase, 
had  been  such  a  staunch  unswerving  Democrat  that  any 
concession  he  might  make  would  be  accepted  by  his  fol- 
lowers as  a  necessity,  rather  than  an  evidence  of  partiality 
or  a  sign  of  falsity. 

Buf  Charles  Dana  could  not  see  the  force  of  this 
logic.  On  July  1st,  Chase  had  issued  his  final  declaration 
of  principles  which  embodied  States  rights,  suffrage  to  all 
citizens  regardless  of  race,  all  disabilities  to  be  removed 
from  the  South,  and  sound  money.8  Pointing  to  this  plat- 
form and  to  the  character  of  Chase,  Dana  felt  obliged  to 
confess  that  the  doctrine  and  the  man  were  "  considerably 
in  advance  of  the  old-fogy  Democracy  of  the  present  day."4 
To  Dana,  Chase  appeared  as  u  a  great,  progressive  states- 

1  New  York  Herald,  July  10,  1868. 
"  New  York  World,  July  10,  1868. 
»  New  York  Sun,  July  7,  1868.     See  platform.  4  Ibid. 


346        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [346 

man  "  who  had  been  rejected  by  the  Tammany  Hall  con- 
vention because  of  his  Radical  associations.  The  vast  ac- 
cession of  strength  which  Chase  would  have  brought  from 
the  Radical  party,  would  be  realized  by  the  Democrats  too 
late.1 

The  Pendletonites  attempted  to  cover  up  their  chagrin 
after  the  nomination  of  Seymour  by  making  public  a  letter 
written  on  June  25,  1868,  by  Mr.  Pendleton  to  Washington 
McLean,  proprietor  of  the  Cincinnati  Enquirer,  prior  to 
the  latter's  departure  for  the  convention.  In  this  letter  Mr. 
Pendleton  professed  to  feel  that  Seymour  was  the  fore- 
most man  in  the  Democracy.  "  I  would  rather  trust  him 
than  myself  with  the  delicate  duties  of  the  next  four  years 
.  .  .  Make  him  feel  .  .  .  that  I  am  ready — anxious  to  give 
up  the  nomination  to  anybody  who  can  get  one  single  vote 
more  than  myself."  2  This  letter  may  have  been  written 
for  the  exact  purpose  which  it  served;  a  more  charitable 
view,  such  as  the  World  took,3  makes  the  letter  an  honor  to 
Pendleton.  But  as  the  game  of  politics  is  played,  one  must 
beware  of  political  letters,  even  under  the  guise  of  personal 
correspondence.  How  convenient  it  is  to  have  every  pos- 
sible avenue  guarded  by  a  letter  which  is  calculated  to  serve 
a  definite  contingency. 

Seymour  "  is  the  fair  representative  of  the  average  sen- 
timents of  the  Democracy  upon  all  the  leading  issues  of 
the  canvass,"  was  the  best  the  Sun  had  to  offer,  although  it 
admitted  his  distinguished  position  in  the  party  and  his 
popularity  east  of  the  Alleghenies.4  General  Blair  was 
characterized  as  a  man  of  fair  talents  and  great  force  of 

1  New  York  Sun,  July  7,  1868. 
a  New  York  Herald,  July  10,  1868. 
8  New  York  World,  July  10,  1868. 
*  New  York  Sun,  July  10,  1868. 


347]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  347 

character,  who  in  his  recent  letter  had  placed  himself  on 
higher  grounds  than  the  Democratic  platform,1  but  "  in 
politics  unsound,  extreme  and  violent  ".2 

This  was  the  attitude  the  Evening  Post  assumed  on 
Blair,3  while  it  considered  Seymour  the  creature  of  ad- 
visers, for  the  most  part  bad  advisers.  The  Democrattc 
platform  set  the  two  parties  in  fair  open  opposition  upon 
the  principal  questions  before  the  country,  i.  e.,  the  ques- 
tion of  Reconstruction  and  the  question  of  the  payment  of 
the  debt.4  The  Evening  Post  saw  in  the  financial  plank  of 
the  Democratic  platform,  repudiation,  which  was  calcu- 
lated to  carry  the  supporters  of  Pendleton  and  in  addition 
win  over  the  Butler  faction  of  the  Radical  party  which 
was  out  of  accord  with  Grant  and  Radical  principles.5 

There  was  no  ambiguity  in  the  succinct  sentences  of  the 
Democratic  platform  on  the  financial  question,  thought  the 
Times;  the  principles  were  those  of  which  Pendleton  was 
the  exponent.  While  the  Times  advocated  no  candidate 
for  the  Democrats  at  any  time,  it  was  obvious  that  it 
thought  Chase  would  make  the  strongest  run  against  Grant. 
After  matching  Seymour's  war  record  with  that  of  Grant 
and  pointing  to  Blair's  revolutionary  letter,  the  Times  con- 
cluded that  the  candidates  and  ticket  inspired  no  apprehen- 
sion of  success.6  The  attitude  of  the  Tribune  on  the  Demo- 
cratic candidates  and  platform  was  similar  to  that  of  the 
Times,  though  naturally  sharper.     Horace  outdid  himself 

1  New  York  Sun,  July  10,  1868. 

'Ibid.,  July  11,  1868. 

•New  York  Evening  Post,  July  i\,  1868. 

4  New  York  Evening  Post,  July  10,  II,  1868. 

5  See  New  York  Sun,  July  8,  1868,  for  a  comparison  of  the  Dem. 
and  Rad.  Nat.  platforms. 

•  New  York  Times,  July  10,  1868. 


348        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [348 

in  reviewing  Horatio's  past.1  But  Greeley  was  outdone  by 
Theodore  Tilton,  who  was  extremely  unpleasant  in  his  re- 
marks on  the  platform  and  candidates.  Rebellion  was  in 
the  air — for  proof  see  the  Democratic  platform.2  Tilton 
took  occasion  to  disagree  with  the  general  view  that  Sey- 
mour's nomination  was  the  result  of  underground  machin- 
ations on  the  part  of  the  New  York  delegation.  He  main- 
tained that  Seymour's  refusal  to  run  was  sincere.  This, 
Tilton  sympathetically  explained,  was  due  to  signs  of  a 
gradually  approaching  insanity.  Also,  the  New  York  dele- 
gation was  sincere  in  its  failure  to  advance  Seymour,  who 
was  simply  hit  by  lightning  under  the  deft  manipulations  of 
General  McCook.  Pendleton  was  the  real  power  of  the 
convention,  being  sufficiently  strong  to  block  the  candi- 
dacy of  any  other  man  and  strong  enough  to  give  the 
nomination  to  anyone  he  chose;  hence  Seymour  was  his 
candidate,  the  platform  being  Pendleton's  on  its  face. 
"  Chase  was  on  everyone's  lips  but  in  no  one's  heart,"  3  was 
the  sole  comfort  Tilton  had  for  his  quondam  candidate. 

The  line  of  comment  of  the  up-State  Radical  papers  was 
perhaps  more  scathing  than  that  adopted  by  the  city  jour- 
nals. "  The  attitude  assumed  by  the  Democratic  party  is  a 
fearfully  fatal  one.  .  .  Never  did  a  party  fling  away  so 
glorious  an  opportunity.  .  .  .  the  Democratic  party  is  im- 
bedded in  political  iniquity,"  sums  up  the  Evening  Jour- 
nal's comment  on  the  convention.  The  Utica  Morning 
Herald  declared  that  the  "  Artful  Dodger  "  himself  would 

1  New  York  Tribune,  July  3-1 1,  1868,  cf.  10th. 

2  The  Independent,  July  16,  1868.  Tilton' s  opening  shot  on 
the  results  of  the  Democratic  convention  follows:  "Audacity,  vio- 
lence, and  revolutionary  frenzy  blew  their  breath  so  furiously  through 
the  scrannel-pipes  of  Tammany  that  already  the  whole  land  rings 
with  the  echo." 

3  The  Independent,  July  16,  1868. 


349]         NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTIONS  349 

have  found  it  difficult  to  pen  a  more  dubious  document. 
"  It  is  the  attempt  of  a  set  of  hungry,  cunning  and  unscru- 
pulous politicians  to  overreach  and  head  off  each  other,  .  . 
at  the  same  time  struggling  to  conceal  the  fact  of  their 
mutual  hatred."  1  Carroll  E.  Smith  termed  the  declaration 
of  principles  as  honest  and  manly  but  at  the  same  time  out- 
rageous and  disgraceful.2  The  Syracuse  Daily  Standard 
contented  itself  with  pointing  out  the  inconsistencies  be- 
tween Seymour's  public  addresses  before  the  convention 
and  the  Democratic  platform.  The  most  glaring  incon- 
sistency was  Seymour's  statement  that  the  payment  of  the 
debt  would  fall  on  the  future  generations,  while  the  plat- 
form stood  for  payment  of  the  debt  as  rapidly  as  was  prac- 
ticable.* The  Rochester  Daily  Democrat  *  and  the  Buffalo 
Express 5  found  the  Democratic  National  Convention  a 
medley  of  exploded  ideas,  dogmas,  platitudes  and  fallacies, 
with  the  Copperheads  in  control. 

But  from  a  close  examination  of  the  up-State  Democratic 
journals  one  fails  to  find  aught  but  joy  over  the  results  of 
the  Democratic  National  Convention.  "  He  is  the  man  for 
the  crisis,"  said  the  Argus.9  The  Utica  Daily  Observer 
considered  Seymour  the  natural  candidate,  being  the  wisest 
before,  during  and  after  the  war.7  It  remained,  however, 
for  Mr.  W.  W.  Green,  editor  of  the  Courier  and  Union,  to 
express  adequately  the  Democratic  exuberance.  "  With 
that  joy  with  which  a  bridegroom  clasps  his  newly- wedded 
bride,  with  that  joy  with  which  the  Pilgrims  of  old,  toiling, 

1  Utica  Morning  Herald,  July  9,  1868. 
1  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  July  9,  1868. 
8  Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  July  II,  1868. 
4  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  July  9,  1868. 

6  Buffalo  Express,  July  9,  II,  1868. 
•  Albany  Argus,  July  10,  1868. 

7  Utica  Daily  Observer,  July  10,  1868. 


350        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [350 

weary  and  footsore,  first  beheld  the  New  Jerusalem,  with 
that  joy  with  which  poor  weak  humanity  clings  to  its 
Saviour  for  support,  we,  an  overburdened,  oppressed  and 
weary  people,  groaning  under  the  sweat  of  a  load  of  indig- 
nities, long  since  too  heavy  to  be  borne,  proclaim  to-day  as 
our  standard  bearer  in  the  great  coming  contest  of  liberty, 
justice  and  freedom,  with  oppression,  injustice  and  inhu- 
manity, the  name  of  Horatio  Seymour,  the  frank,  fearless, 
candid,  self-denying  man,  the  bold,  intrepid  leader,  the  emi- 
nent scholar,  and  the  distinguished  statesman  of  the  Empire 
State."  l 

1  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  July  10,  1868. 


CHAPTER  XII 
The  State  Conventions  of  New  York  in  1868 
the  republican  state  nominating  convention 

Due  to  the  overshadowing  of  the  greater  Democratic 
National  Convention  which  was  in  session  at  the  time,  the 
Republican  State  Nominating  Convention  which  met  at 
Syracuse  on  Wednesday,  July  8,  1868,  excited  little  inter- 
est among  the  papers  or  the  people  at  large.  Although 
Fenton's  defeat  in  the  National  Republican  Convention  of 
the  previous  May  was  sufficiently  prominent  to  disturb  the 
State  convention,  in  reality  the  latter  convention  was  little 
more  than  a  ratifying  body  for  the  former.  Nevertheless, 
since  the  major  State  officers  were  to  be  nominated,  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  serious  attention  was  devoted  by  the  leaders. 

Among  the  more  prominent  in  attendance  were  John  L. 
Parker,  of  Cayuga;  Judge  Robertson,  of  Westchester; 
Hamilton  Harris,  Judge  Low,  Chauncey  Depew,  General 
Merritt,  General  Cochrane,  Ben  Field,  Waldo  M.  Potter, 
J.  W.  Kimball,  of  Franklin ;  C.  W.  Godard,  Senators  Chap- 
man, Hale  and  Palmer,  Waldo  Hutchins,  Charles  Spencer 
and  Thayer  Francis,  of  the  Troy  Times.  Horace  Greeley 
was  not  in  attendance,  but  sent  up  John  Russell  Young,  of 
the  Tribune  office,  to  represent  his  interests. 

The  delegates  to  the  State  convention  came  for  the  most 
part  uninstructed  and  appeared  to  be  far  from  zealous  in 
anyone's  interest.  The  leading  candidates  for  Governor  in- 
cluded the  names  of  John  A.  Griswold,  of  Troy;  Lyman 
Tremaine,  of  New  York;  Marshall  O.  Roberts,  of  New 
35i]  35i 


352        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [352 

York;  Charles  H.  Van  Wyck,  of  New  York;  Stewart  L. 
Woodford,  of  Kings,  and  Horace  Greeley.  Greeley  fur- 
nished the  surprise  of  the  convention,  turning  up  at  the 
eleventh  hour  as  a  candidate  for  the  governorship.  His 
friends  were  led  by  Governor  Fenton,  who  controlled 
the  convention.  The  candidacy  of  Greeley  considerably 
disturbed  conditions,  for  most  of  the  country  delegates  had 
decided  upon  Griswold  or  Tremaine,  with  chances  favoring 
the  former.  For  the  other  offices  the  competition  was  not 
keen  and  the  slate  was  unsettled.  Mr.  Van  Wyck  in  a 
letter  dated  July  7th,  addressed  to  the  Hon.  E.  M.  Madden, 
declined  to  run  for  Governor,  reducing  the  candidates  to 
five. 

Hamilton  Harris,  chairman  of  the  State  committee, 
called  the  convention  to  order  at  noon  on  the  8th.  On 
motion  of  Mr.  E.  M.  Madden,  of  Orange,  Mr.  Henry 
Smith,  of  Albany,  was  made  temporary  chairman.  The 
preliminary  organization  of  the  convention  then  followed 
and  produced  the  annual  split  between  the  New  York  City 
Radicals  and  Conservatives.  It  would  appear,  however, 
that  the  Twenty-third  Street  organization  had  acquired  wis- 
dom. It  sent  no  contesting  delegation,  but  did  send  a  com- 
mittee to  ask  for  a  reorganization.1  Mr.  Younglove  moved 
that  a  committee  composed  of  Messrs.  Joseph  H.  Ramsey, 
J.  C.  Bancroft  Davis,  Walter  L.  Sessions,  Mathew  Hale, 
C.  M.  Demson,  Roswell  Hart  and  C.  H.  Chapman  be  ap- 
pointed to  hear  the  facts  on  the  trouble  between  the  rival 
New  York  City  delegations  and  report  to  the  convention 
as  soon  as  practicable.  This  was  strenuously  opposed  by 
Charles  Spencer,  leader  of  the  Radical  faction  from  the 
City.  He  objected  to  the  resolution  taking  the  naming  of 
the  committee  away  from  the  chair,  and  especially  to  the 
name  of  Mathew  Hale,  of  Essex,  whom  he  accused  of 

1  New  York  Times,  July  9,  1868. 


353]      STATE  CONVENTIONS  OF  NEW  YORK  IN  1868      ^$ 

having  done  all  in  his  power  to  thwart  Governor  Fenton's 
administration.  Mr.  Hale  immediately  replied,  flatly  deny- 
ing Mr.  Spencer's  charge  and  refusing  to  serve  on  the  com- 
mittee. Mr.  Sessions  likewise  declined  to  serve.  For  a 
time  it  looked  as  if  the  first  day  of  the  convention  would 
be  entirely  given  up  to  a  settlement  of  the  New  York  feud. 
Attempts  by  Waldo  Hutchins  and  Mr.  E.  M.  Madden  to 
side  track  the  controversy  failed.  But  Mr.  A.  X.  Parker 
succeeded  in  having  a  resolution  passed  which  called  for  a 
committee  of  two  from  each  judicial  district  except  the 
first.  This  committee  '  was  instructed  to  report  at  the  next 
State  convention.  After  announcement  of  the  committees 
the  convention  adjourned  until  3  130  P.  M. 

At  the  afternoon  session  the  rules  of  the  last  assembly 
were  adopted  upon  motion  of  Chauncey  Depew.  For  per- 
manent president,  General  John  Cochrane  was  reported  by 
General  Gates  of  the  committee  on  permanent  organiza- 
tion. No  opposition  developed  and  General  Cochrane  was 
nominated.  The  committee  on  contested  seats  reported 
adversely  to  the  contestants  in  each  case.  But  one  import- 
ant item  of  business  now  intervened  between  the  real  busi- 
ness of  the  convention.  A  resolution  was  offered  and 
adopted,2  after  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  place  it  upon 
the  table,  which  aimed  to  equalize  the  representation  in 
future  Republican  State  conventions.  It  provided  that 
there  should  be  one  additional  delegate  from  each  assembly 
district  and  one  additional  delegate  from  said  district  for 
every  1,500  voters  or  fraction  of  1,500  over  750. 8 

1  Committee  E.  M.  Madden,  of .  Orange ;  Thomas  W.  Jackson,  of 
Albany;  A.  X.  Parker,  of  St.  Lawrence;  T.  W.  Dwight,  of  Oneida; 
Norwood  Bowne,  of  Delaware;  Lewis  E.  Smith,  of  Livingston;  and 
Norman  Allen,  of  Cattaraugus. 

*  By  a  vote  of  208-152. 

•  New  York  Tribune,  July  9,  1868. 


354        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [354 

On  motion  of  Charles  Spencer,  of  New  York,  the  con- 
vention moved  to  an  informal  ballot  for  Governor.  Mr. 
George  W.  Demers,  of  Rensselaer,  briefly  but  warmly 
nominated  John  A.  Griswold,  of  Troy;  the  nomination  was 
seconded  by  Mr.  Hart,  of  Monroe.  Mr.  Blank  proposed 
the  name  of  Lieutenant-Governor  Stewart  L.  Woodford. 
The  third  and  last  nomination  was  made  by  Chauncey  M. 
Depew,  who  in  placing  the  name  of  Horace  Greeley  before 
the  convention  referred  to  him  as  towering  above  all  other 
men  in  the  Republican  party  in  point  of  intellect  and  ser- 
vices.1 Charles  S.  Spencer  seconded  Greeley's  nomination. 
Depew's  eulogy  of  Greeley  elicited  a  storm  of  applause 
which  contrasted  strongly  with  the  number  of  ballots  which 
Greeley  received.  Was  Greeley  led  into  an  ambuscade  as 
many  of  his  friends  claimed?  The  question  arises  as  to  the 
motives  of  Depew  and  Spencer  in  their  support  of  Greeley 
at  this  time,  both  having  previously  suffered  from  Greeley's 
caustic  pen.  Two  answers  suggest  themselves:  that  it 
was  part  of  a  plan  to  pass  the  Republican  state  control  to 
New  York  City;  or,  what  is  more  credible,  that  it  was  a 
patriotic  effort  to  support  a  man  who  was  in  their  opinion 
best  qualified  for  the  office.  We  leave  the  question.  The 
informal  ballot  gave  Griswold  247,  Greeley  95,  and  Wood- 
ford 36  votes.  Immediately  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Gris- 
wold was  made  unanimous. 

For  lieutenant-governor,  Alonzo  B.  Cornell,  of  Ithaca, 
was  placed  in  nomination  by  Mr.  Selkreg,  of  Tompkins.  Mr. 
August  Frank,  of  Wyoming,  and  Gen.  Franz  Sigel  also 
were  proposed,  but  on  the  first  ballot  Alonzo  B.  Cornell  re- 
ceived 219  votes  to  88  and  6  for  Mr.  Frank  and  Gen.  Sigel 
respectively.  Mr.  Cornell's  nomination  was  then  made 
unanimous.     Mr.  Alexander  Barkley,  of  Washington,  was 

1  New  York  Herald,  July  9,  1868. 


355] 


STATE  CONVENTIONS  OF  NEW  YORK  IN  1868 


355 


nominated  for  canal  commissioner  by  acclamation.  Colonel 
Edward  Lansing,  as  chairman  for  a  subcommittee  from 
the  Soldiers'  Organization  was  presented  and  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  that  body  requested  the  nomination  of  Hon. 
Henry  A.  Barnum  as  candidate  for  inspector  of  State 
prisons.  His  request  was  granted  by  acclamation.  Charles 
S.  Spencer  then  proposed  Colonel  Lansing  as  the  candidate 
for  clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  but  the  motion  to  substi- 
tute the  name  of  Campbell  H.  Young  was  carried  by  a  vote 
of  201  to  27,  and  the  nomination  made  unanimous.  For 
electors-at-large,  Mr.  William  R.  Stewart,  of  the  com- 
mittee to  select  electors-at-large,  reported  the  names  of 
Marshall  O.  Roberts,  of  New  York,  and  Henry  R.  Seldon, 
of  Monroe.  The  report  was  adopted  but  not  before  an  at- 
tempt was  made  to  substitute  the  name  of  Horace  Greeley 
for  that  of  Roberts.  The  adoption  of  the  resolutions  and 
the  report  of  the  names  of  electors  1  and  the  members  of 


1  Electors  reported  by  the  respective  Congressional  Delegations. 


1st  District — George  W.  Curtis 

17th  District- 

—William C.  Brown 

2nd 

Jacob  Worth 

ed! 

< « 

George  S.  Batchellar 

3rd 

E.  A.  Steedwell 

19th 

<  < 

James  H.  Graham 

4th 

"         Samuel  S.  Wyckoff 

20th 

«« 

Morris  Winslow 

5th 

"          Moses  H.  Grinnell 

21  st 

<  < 

Patrick  C.  Costello 

6th 

11         Charles  S.  Spencer 

22nd 

•' 

Robert  Stewart 

7th 

Alex.  T.  Stewart 

23rd 

<  < 

Edward  B.  Judson 

8th 

1         Frederick  Schuetz 

24th 

<  < 

H.  H.  Guthrie 

gth 

H.  C.  VanVorst 

25th 

<  < 

Samuel  Jane 

10th 

"          Ambrose  L.  Rider 

26th 

« < 

Charles  M.  Titus 

nth 

Elisha  P.  Wheeler 

27th 

« « 

Horace  Bemis 

1 2th 

"          George  Innis 

28th 

« < 

Edwin  R.  Reynolds 

13th 

1         Thomas  Cornell 

29th 

11 

Stoughton  Pettibone 

14th 

'          Charles  H.  Adams 

30th 

" 

M.  Weidrick 

15th 

1          Geo.  W.  Demers 

3ISt 

" 

Norman  M.  Allen 

16th 

Moses  R.  Piatt 

356        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [356 

the  State  committee  1  furnished  the  last  item  of  the  conven- 
tion's business. 

The  platform  was  an  echo  of  the  Chicago  platform.2  The 
Congress  which  had  accomplished  Reconstruction  was 
ranked  with  that  which  had  decreed  the  downfall  of  slav- 
ery. The  soldiers  and  sailors  were  thanked  for  their  sup- 
port of  the  Union  and  immediate  payment  of  the  bounties 
together  with  generous  financial  measures  in  their  behalf 
were  urged.  A  general  reduction  in  the  cost  of  administra- 
tion was  demanded  together  with  a  return  to  specie  pay- 
ment. The  full  payment  of  the  national  debt  was  urged  as 
alone  consistent  with  the  national  honor.  Generous  natur- 
alization and  immigration  laws  should  be  enacted  and  the 
protection  of  the  American  law  extended  the  world  over 
to  naturalized  citizens  no  matter  where  born.  General 
Grant  and  Schuyler  Colfax  were  lauded,  as  was  the  admin- 
istration of  Governor  Reuben  E.  Fenton. 

The  editorial  opinion  on  the  work  of  the  Republican 


The  State  Committee. 


1st  District— J.  B.  Cooper 

17th  District- 

-E.  A.  Merritt 

2nd 

"         S.  B.  Dutcher 

18th 

<  * 

H.  M.  Crane 

3rd 

"         Benjamin  Wilson 

19th 

k 

L.  Kinsley 

4th 

"         Joshua  G.  Abbe 

20th 

N 

E.  R.  Livingston 

5th 

Waldo  Hutchins 

21st 

i  < 

L.  Blakesley 

6th 

11          Sinclair  Toucey 

22nd 

(i 

B.  G.  Fort 

7th 

"          Benjamin  Merritt 

23rd 

< « 

James  Terwilliger 

8th 

W.  P.  Esterbrook 

24th 

« < 

George  J.  Post 

pth 

Ira  O.  Miller 

25th 

" 

Thomas  Hillhouse 

10th 

1         James  W.  Husted 

26th 

<< 

Thomas  C.  Piatt 

nth 

H.  R.  Low 

27th 

<  t 

H.  H.  Hull 

1 2th 

"         Cornelius  Esseltyne 

28th 

« < 

Lyman  M.  Newton 

13th 

Joshua  Furro,  Jr. 

29th 

it 

D.A.VanValkenburg 

14th 

Hamilton  Harris 

30th 

t  < 

George  G.  Newman 

15th 
16th 

A.  D.  Wait 
1         Samuel  Root 

31st 

n 

Henry  C.  Luke 

1  New  York  Times,  July  9,  1868;  New  York  Tribune,  July  9,  1868. 


357]     STATE  CONVENTIONS  OF  NEW  YORK  IN  1868     ^7 

State  convention  was  stereotyped.  The  Times  pointed  out 
the  six  years  of  successive  service  in  the  House  with  which 
Griswold  was  credited,  also  his  extensive  executive  and  ad- 
ministrative experience  in  connection  with  the  large  busi- 
ness interests  with  which  he  was  connected  at  Troy.1  His 
election  was  not  a  matter  of  doubt.  Anticipating  the  Demo- 
cratic attack  the  Times  attempted  to  minimize  the  fact  that 
Griswold  had  been  originally  elected  to  Congress  as  a  War 
Democrat,  by  showing  that  he  had  always  acted  with  the 
Republican  party  in  Congress.2 

James  Gordon  Bennett  refused  to  whitewash  the  weak- 
ness of  the  Radical  State  convention.  He  boldly  stated 
that  the  convention  was  not  calculated  to  inspire  confidence 
in  view  of  the  irrepressible  "  cat  and  dog  "  row  between 
the  rival  New  York  City  factions.  If  the  Democracy 
would  nominate  a  proper  candidate,  Griswold  and  the  entire 
ticket  would  be  defeated  by  a  larger  majority  than  the  Radi- 
cals of  the  previous  year.8 

If  Horace  Greeley  was  chagrined  over  the  deceit  prac- 
tised upon  him  and  his  consequent  defeat  in  the  Republican 
convention,  as  we  have  the  right  to  assume,  not  the  slight- 
est trace  appeared  in  the  columns  of  the  Tribune.  "  We 
believe  this  [Griswold]  an  eminently  wise  and  fortunate 
selection.  .  .  .  He  has  never  yet  been  defeated  and  he  can- 

1  Head  of  a  large  iron  manufactory,  president  of  a  bank  and  direc- 
tor in  several  railroads,  factories  and  transportation  companies.  First 
rate  business  capacity,  elegant  agreeable  manners,  extensive  connec- 
tions.   New  York  Sun,  July  o,  1868. 

*  New  York  Times,  July  9,  1868. 

•  New  York  Herald,  July  9,  1868.  Incidentally  the  Herald  found 
much  amusement  in  the  failure  of  Greeley  to  win  the  Republican 
nomination.    New  York  Herald,  July  10,  1868. 

The  New  York  Times,  July  9,  1868,  was  apparently  sympathetic  with 
Greeley  in  his  ambuscade  and  rout,  for  it  thought  that  the  result 
would  have  been  different  had  Greeley  been  there  in  person.  The 
Nation  thought  likewise.    July  16,  1868. 


358        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [358 

not  now  be."  x  The  Tribune  further  echoed  the  Troy 
Times,  Griswold's  home  paper,  which  accredited  to  Gris- 
wold  great  personal  as  well  as  political  popularity  and  re- 
markably apt  executive  and  administrative  abilities.2 

The  Evening  Post  gave  a  qualified  assent  to  the  nomina- 
tion of  Mr.  Griswold.  It  was  inclined  to  believe  that  he  would 
be  of  some  positive  good  to  the  State  if  elected,  were  it  not 
for  the  fact  that  the  State  constitution  makes  a  figure- 
head of  the  Governor.  The  platform,  although  simply  an 
echo  of  the  Chicago  platform,  would  not  suffer,  because  the 
Democratic  State  platform  would  likewise  ignore  State 
matters  in  endorsing  the  New  York  platform.3  The  Com- 
mercial Advertiser  gave  more  attention  to  the  Republican 
State  convention  than  any  of  the  other  City  papers.  It 
believed  that  success  was  more  certain  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Griswold  than  under  that  of  any  one  else.  But  it 
took  issue  against  the  bad  counsels  that  had  prevailed  at 
Syracuse.  "  Those  eminently  pure  patriots,  Charley  Spen- 
cer and  Waldo  Hutchins  ",  were  accused  of  having  caused 
the  disruption  of  the  Republican  ranks  of  New  York  City, 
producing  a  decrease  of  votes  from  36,000  to  i8,ooo.4 

The  World  editorially  took  but  slight  notice  of  the  Re- 
publican State  convention.  It  purported  to  consider  the 
nomination  of  the  opulent  and  amiable  Griswold  as  a  fair 
exchange  for  the  Republican  State  campaign  expenses.  As 
for  the  platform  it  "  cheers  Fenton  as  he  sails  to  glory  on 
his  mattress ;  invites  the  general  government  to  take  an  in- 
terest in  the  Erie  canal  frauds ;  recognizes  the  corruptionists 

1  New  York  Tribune,  July  9,   1868. 

*  Troy  Times,  July  8,  1868.  Quoted  in  New  York  Tribune,  July  9, 
1868. 

8  New  York  Evening  Post,  July  9,  1868. 

4  Votes  of  1864  and  1867.  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  July 
9,  1868. 


359]      STATE  CONVENTIONS  OF  NEW  YORK  IN  1868      ^9 

of  Congress  as  praiseworthy  brethren  of  the  Albany  ring; 
and  thanks  the  Rump  for  doing  '  persistently  and  firmly ' 
all  that  it  has  utterly  failed  to  do."  '  In  its  next  issue  the 
World  began  its  campaign  against  Griswold  by  showing 
how  he  had  voted  in  Congressional  committee  to  profit  at 
the  expense  of  the  government  in  connection  with  his  gov- 
ernmental iron  contracts.2  The  Sun  refused  to  commit 
itself  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  selection  of  Griswold.  It 
believed  that  Frederick  A.  Conkling,3  Horace  Greeley  or 
Marshall  O.  Roberts  would  have  pulled  stronger  in  the 
eastern  counties  of  the  State,  where  the  Democrats  could 
count  upon  a  100,000  majority.4 

Even  more  noticeable  than  the  failure  of  the  Republican 
State  convention  to  arouse  interest  among  New  York  City 
journals  was  the  lack  of  interest  displayed  in  it  by  the  up- 
State  papers.  Among  the  Republican  organs  the  Rochester 
Daily  Democrat  alone  raised  a  voice  of  dissent  to  the  nomi- 
nation of  John  A.  Griswold.  It  thought  that  the  wisest 
action  for  the  convention  would  have  been  the  nomination 
of  Horace  Greeley,  but  agreed  to  support  Griswold  as  sec- 
ond best.8  Roberts  contented  himself  with  emphasizing 
the  unanimity  of  the  Chicago  and  Syracuse  conventions  as 
contrasted  with  the  bitterness  of  the  Democratic  National 
convention  then  in  session.6  Of  the  Democratic  up-State 
journals  the  Argus  advanced  the  most  noteworthy  opinion; 
which  was  that  Griswold  was  nominated  by  the  aid  of,  and 
would  be  beaten  by  the  Fentonites.7 

1  New  York  World,  July  o,  1868. 

8  Ibid.,  July  io,  1868. 

8  Brother  to  Roscoe  Conkling.   < 

4  New  York  Sun,  July  g,  1868. 

fi  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  July  9,  1868. 

•Utica  Morning  Herald,  July  9,  1868. 

*  Albany  Argus,  July  13,  1868. 


360        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [360 
THE  DEMOCRATIC  STATE  NOMINATING  CONVENTION 

The  Democrats  of  the  State  according  to  the  time-hon- 
ored custom  waited  until  September  before  holding  their 
State  convention,  which  met  at  Tweedle  Hall,  Albany,  Sep- 
tember 2,  1868.  The  convention  assembled  under  unfavor- 
able auspices,  for  Vermont  on  the  preceding  day  had  given 
Grant  and  Colfax  an  emphatic  indorsement.1  This  tended 
to  dampen  noticeably  the  ardor  of  the  delegates  2  at  Albany. 
The  chief  pre-convention  interest  centered  around  the  rival 
delegations  and  candidates  from  New  York  City  and 
Brooklyn.  Supervisor  Tweed  led  the  Tammany  forces  for 
Hoffman  while  John  Morrissey  led  the  opposition  Brooklyn 
delegation  for  State  Senator  Henry  C.  Murphy. 

Mr.  Murphy  was  a  politician  of  some  note,  having  been 
mayor  of  Brooklyn,  its  corporation  counsel,  twice  its  repre- 
sentative in  Congress  and  from  1856  to  i860  the  United 
States  Minister  to  the  Hague.  From  i860  he  had  sat  in 
the  New  York  senate,  where  he  had  advanced  himself 
towards  the  governorship  both  in  1866  and  1868.8  Never- 
theless, the  backers  of  Mr.  Murphy  appeared  to  have  made 
little  progress  against  Hoffman  prior  to  the  convention.4 
Their  aim  on  the  eve  of  the  convention  was  to  muster  suf- 
ficient strength  in  order  to  force  the  nomination  of  a  third 
man. 

In  spite  of  the  opposition  of  John  Morrissey,  who  had 
been  one  of  the  main  factors  in  forcing  the  nomination  of 
Hoffman  two  years  before,  the  opinion  seemed  to  prevail 
that  Hoffman  beyond  question  would  be  renominated.     In 

1  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  2,  1868. 

*  Among  the  more  prominent  delegates  present  were :  Samuel  J. 
Tilden,  Sandford  E.  Church,  Senator  Murphy,  John  A.  Green,  H.  A. 
Nelson,  H.  S.  Randall,  Judge  Garvin,  Peter  B.  Sweeny  and  Judge 
Connolly.     Governor  Seymour  was  not  in  attendance. 

■  New  York  Times,  Sept.  2,  1868. 

4  New  York  Sun,  Sept.  2,  1868;  New  York  World,  Sept.  2,  1868. 


361]      STATE  CONVENTIONS  OF  NEW  YORK  IN  1868      361 

1866  the  country  delegates  in  the  main  had  united  against 
Hoffman  and  his  Tammany  supporters  because  he  was 
backed  by  Morrissey.  Yet  paradoxically  in  1868  Mor- 
rissey's  opposition  to  Hoffman  proved  a  recommendation 
for  the  latter.  This  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  at 
this  time  Morrissey  was  more  widely  known  up-State  for 
his  political  trickery  than  were  Tweed  and  his  Tammany 
ring. 

The  aspirants  for  the  lieutenant-governorship  were  A. 
P.  Lanning,  of  Buffalo;  A.  C.  Beach,  of  Watertown;  Gen- 
eral James  McQuade,  of  Utica,  the  soldiers'  candidate ;  and 
Smith  Weed,  of  Clinton  County,  with  chances  in  favor  of 
Mr.  Lanning.1  The  other  offices  incited  no  contest  except 
for  clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  which  eight 2  candi- 
dates appeared.  Of  these  only  Messrs.  E.  O.  Perrin,  W.  B. 
Henderson  and  C.  Ten  Broeck  were  prominently  mentioned, 
with  Mr.  Perrin  in  the  lead. 

Samuel  J.  Tilden,  chairman  of  the  State  committee, 
called  the  convention  to  order  in  an  optimistic  address.  A 
temporary  organization  was  effected  without  dissent,  Mr. 
H.  O.  Cheesbro,  of  Ontario,  taking  the  chair.  The  only 
contest  for  seats  was  between  Isaac  M.  Marsh,  of  Rich- 
mond County,  and  Dr.  James  Harcourt.  This  was  re- 
ferred to  a  committee  8  which  later  reported  in  favor  of  Mr. 
Marsh.  After  arranging  for  committees  on  permanent  or- 
ganization and  referring  a  motion  on  excise  *  to  its  proper 
committee,  the  convention  adjourned  until  3  130  P.  M. 

1  New  York  World,  Sept.  2,  1868. 

1  George  Becker,  of  Broome ;  Wm.  H.  Henderson,  of  Cattaraugus ; 
Orrin  W.  Smith,  of  Delaware;  E.-  O.  Perrin,  of  Queens;  Henry  J. 
Glowack,  of  Genesee;  Cornelius  Ten  Broeck,  of  Albany;  James  D. 
Little,  of  Putnam ;  Wm.  Lounsberry,  of  Ulster. 

*  Messrs.  Beach,  Tweed  and  Ross. 

*New  York  Times,  Sept.  3,  1868.  John  Fox  moved  the  following: 
"Resolved,  That  no  Excise  laws  should  be  enacted  except  such  as 


362        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [362 

Upon  reassembling  for  the  afternoon  session  the  com- 
mittee on  resolutions  was  appointed.  One  of  the  members 
of  this  committee  from  the  eighth  district  was  Grover 
Cleveland.  Robert  Earl,1  of  Herkimer,  headed  the  list  of 
permanent  officers.  In  his  address  when  taking  the  chair 
he  echoed  the  principles  of  the  Democratic  National  plat- 
form. A  committee  of  two  from  each  judicial  district  was 
appointed  to  report  an  electoral  ticket.  Under  the  guid- 
ance of  Mr.  Ten  Eyck,  of  Seneca,  the  State  committee  was 
enlarged  to  thirty-three,  one  member  for  each  congressional 
district.  In  addition,  on  motion  of  Calvert  Comstock,  of 
Oneida,  the  president  of  the  convention  was  empowered  to 
appoint  three  members  at  large.2 

Next  in  order  of  procedure  was  the  nomination  of  a 
Governor.  It  appears  that  the  nomination  was  conceded  by 
practically  all  to  John  T.  Hoffman,  the  Tweed  candidate. 
Results  verified  this  belief.  After  Hoffman  had  been  nomi- 
nated by  George  W.  Miller,  a  letter  was  read  to  the  conven- 
tion by  Mr.  D.  P.  Barnard  in  which  Senator  Henry  C. 
Murphy  withdrew  his  name  in  the  interest  of  harmony.3 
Under  the  placid  tone  of  this  letter  it  would  be  hard  for 
the  uninitiated  to  suspect  that  a  deep  wound  rankled.  The 
supporters  of  Murphy  felt  deeply  chagrined  not  only  over 
the  withdrawal  of  their  leader  but  because  certain  leaders 
of  the  country  districts  hoped  to  make  a  combination 
against  Tammany  Hall.4     Mr.   A.   Oakey  Hall  seconded 

are  uniform  in  their  operation  throughout  the  whole  State;  and  that 
the  execution  of  such  laws,  and  the  collection  of  the  taxes  themselves 
thereunder,  should  only  be  through  the  medium  of  the  local  authorities 
of  each  county." 

1  Later  of  the  Court  of  Appeals. 

a  New  York  World,  Sept.  3,  1868. 

8  New  York  World,  Sept.  3,  1868. 

4  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  3,  1868.    Among  the  leaders  of  this  de- 


363]      STATE  CONVENTIONS  OF  NEW  YORK  IN  1868      ^63 

Hoffman's  name,  promising  him  90,000  majority  in  the 
metropolis.  Hoffman's  nomination  followed  by  acclama- 
tion, William  Marcy  Tweed  leading  the  cheers.1 

But  Tweed's  cup  of  joy  was  soon  mingled  with  gall,  for 
Tammany  was  bearded  in  its  den.  The  nominations  for 
lieutenant-governor  were  immediately  called  for.  Levi  H. 
Brown,  of  Jefferson,  nominated  Allen  C.  Beach;  Daniel 
Magone,  Jr.,  nominated  W.  J.  Averill,  of  St.  Lawrence; 
and  Albert  P.  Lanning,  of  Erie,  was  proposed  by  Mr.  C.  C. 
Torrance.  Everything  appeared  regular  until  Judge 
Morris,  district  attorney  of  Kings,  in  seconding  the  nomi- 
nation of  Mr.  Averill,  turned  upon  Mr.  Lanning  and  his 
Tammany  supporters  in  a  speech  the  vehemence  of  which 
had  been  seldom  if  ever  approached  in  a  Democratic  con- 
vention.2 Judge  Morris  warned  the  up-State  delegates  as 
to  the  true  character  of  Tweed  and  company,  declaring 
that  in  voting  for  Hoffman  they  voted  for  the  same  man 
to  represent  New  York  in  the  Senate.  He  pointed  to  the 
unfinished  New  York  City  court  house  and  a  thousand 
other  schemes  of  robbery  and  plunder.  Judge  Morris  sus- 
tained his  attack  with  such  vigor  that  by  the  time  he 
had  finished  it  was  quite  evident  that  the  Tweed  slate  had 
been  broken.8     No  one  raised  a  voice  in  defense  of  Tam- 

feated  movement  were:  Robert  Chrystie,  of  the  First  Senatorial  Dis- 
trict; Secretary  of  State  Nelson,  of  Dutchess;  Senator  Beach,  of 
Greene;  Erastus  Corning,  of  Albany;  John  Morrissey,  ex-Senator 
Blood,  of  Saratoga;  W.  S.  Clark,  of  Schoharie;  Jacob  Hardenburgh, 
of  Ulster  and  John  A.  Green,  of  Syracuse,  who  fared  the  worst  of  all 
as  he  was  ignored  at  the  convention  and  his  place  on  the  State  Central 
Committee  given  to  another. 

1  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  3,  1868. 

'New  York  Times,  Sept.  3,  1868;  New  York  World,  Sept.  3,  1868; 
New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  3,  1868. 

8  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  3,  1868.  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept. 
4,   1868.    An  extract   from  Judge   Morris's  speech:   "The  ring  must 


364        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [364 

many.  The  ring  knew  too  well  the  wisdom  of  silence.  Its 
eight  million  dollars  profit  on  the  county  court  house  and 
other  items  would  not  bear  cross-examination.  Mr.  Lud- 
dington,  of  Onondaga,  finally  attempted  to  pour  oil  on  the 
troubled  waters  by  urging  the  selection  of  his  old  school- 
mate, Mr.  Beach.  The  convention  then  proceeded  to  an  in- 
formal ballot  with  the  result  as  follows:  A.  P.  Lanning, 
47;  A.  C.  Beach,  68;  W.  J.  Averill,  9;  S.  T.  Arnot,  i.1 
After  the  vote  had  been  announced  the  nomination  was 
made  unanimous  for  Beach.  The  Murphy  men  considered 
this  in  the  nature  of  a  triumph  and  were  in  a  measure  ap- 
peased. 2  Mr.  Beach  upon  being  called  to  the  front  thanked 
the  convention.  Further  business  appeared  impossible  be- 
cause of  sundry  lacerated  feelings,  so  the  convention  ad- 
journed to  the  next  morning. 

The  Kings  County  vs.  Tammany  incident  of  the  convention 
was  the  result  of  a  long-standing  feud  between  the  Demo- 
cratic organizations  on  opposite  sides  of  the  East  River. 
Due  to  divisions  within  the  Kings  County  forces  no  ef- 
fective opposition  had  been  directed  against  Tammany  for 
some  time. 8  In  1866  Henry  C.  Murphy  had  attempted  to 
gain  the  gubernatorial  nomination  but  failed  through  the 
opposition  of  General  Slocum,  who  as  a  friend  of  President 

have  all,  and  all  must  bend  to  that  ring.  .  .  .  They  will  demand  to  con- 
trol the  Federal  patronage,  should  Horatio  Seymour  be  elected,  and 
he  will  be  elected.  Let  them  once  secure  that,  and  the  unfinished 
court-house,  and  like  jobs  of  theirs,  will  sink  into  insignificance 
when  compared  with  what  they  will  undertake  in  the  same  line.  .  .  . 
When  we  came  to  Albany  what  did  we  find?  We  found  every  lobby- 
ist, whether  Democrat  or  Republican,  employed  working  for  them  and 
their  candidate."  Much  as  he  respected  John  T.  Hoffman  he  felt  that 
the  combination  referred  to  should  not  be  permitted  or  tolerated. 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  3,  1868. 

1  New  York  Sun,  Sept.  3,  1868. 

8  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  4,  1868;  New  York  Times,  Sept.  4,  1868; 
New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Sept.   1,  1868. 


365]     STATE  CONVENTIONS  OF  NEW  YORK  IN  1868     ^6$ 

Johnson  controlled  considerable  patronage.  Two  years  had 
changed  matters  in  Kings  County,  as  Slocum,  in  return  for 
Murphy's  support  on  the  bridge  bill  and  other  matters,  was 
now  his  most  earnest  advocate.  Tammany  had  also  obli- 
gated itself  to  Murphy  for  his  support  on  sundry  measures, 
among  them  the  police  commissionership  and  the  New  York 
street-railways  bills.  Tammany  forgot  its  many  promises 
to  Murphy.  Hence  in  1868  we  find  the  Kings  County  dele- 
gation solid  for  Murphy  but  failing  to  win  its  goal  because 
of  the  treachery  of  Tweed. 

The  apparent  futility  of  Murphy's  candidacy  was  real- 
ized by  certain  of  his  supporters,  who,  as  it  afterward 
leaked  out,  had  met  on  September  1st  and  drawn  up  the 
letter  of  declination  to  which  we  have  referred  above.1 
This  action  was  forced,  as  it  was  known  positively  that  two- 
thirds  of  the  delegates  were  for  Hoffman.  But  had  the 
Brooklyn  delegation  presented  Murphy's  name  backed  by 
the  attack  of  Judge  Morris  the  nomination  would  doubt- 
less have  gone  either  to  Mr.  Murphy  or  to  a  third  man. 
Not  only  was  Judge  Morris  prepared  to  support  Mr. 
Murphy  but  several  members  of  the  Brooklyn  delegation, 
which  was  conceded  to  be  the  ablest  on  the  floor,  were  pre- 
pared with  speeches  to  advocate  Mr.  Murphy  and  attack 
Tammany.  With  such  men  as  Judge  Barnard,  Corpora- 
tion Counsel  McCue,  General  Slocum  and  Judge  Morris, 
each  able  to  enforce  his  views  creditably  as  speaker  and 
each  fired  with  an  animus,  the  public  would  have  enjoyed 
such  an  exposure  of  Tammany's  iniquities  as  would  have 
startled  even  its  enemies. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  the  spectators  who  packed  the  gal- 
leries were  rewarded  with  no  open  renewal  of  the  quarrel 
when  the  convention  reconvened  at  10:45  tne  following 

1  Vide,  supra,  p.  362. 


366        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [366 

morning.  Chairman  James  B.  Craig,  of  the  committee  on 
resolutions,  submitted  its  report,  which  was  adopted  by  ac- 
clamation.1 The  platform  was  in  the  nature  of  a  comment 
on  the  Democratic  National  platform.  The  preamble  re- 
affirmed the  National  Democratic  platform.  Nine  special 
clauses  urged  the  immediate  restoration  of  all  States  to 
their  rights  under  the  constitution,  amnesty  for  all  past 
political  offenses,  payment  of  all  public  obligations  in  strict 
accordance  with  their  terms,  equal  taxation  of  every  species 
of  property  including  government  bonds,  one  currency  for 
all,  the  assertion  of  American  nationality  and  the  reform 
of  abuse  in  administration  especially  in  the  South.  The 
ninth  article,  after  giving  an  expression  of  obligation  to 
Andrew  Johnson  for  his  stand  against  a  faithless  party,  and 
appreciation  of  the  aid  given  by  Chief  Justice  Chase  against 
impeachment,  strongly  indorsed  the  national  Democratic 
nominees.  The  platform  took  but  two  positions  on  matters 
of  State  policy,  both  of  which  were  popular.  These  were 
demands  for  uniformity  in  the  registration  and  excise  laws 
throughout  the  State,  and  execution  of  the  excise  laws  in 
all  cases  by  local  authorities.  On  the  finance  question  the 
State  platform  was  more  outspoken  than  the  national  plat- 
form in  declaring  that  when  the  bond  stipulates  gold,  gold 
must  be  paid,  but  when  it  does  not,  lawful  currency  must  be 
paid.  In  sharp  contrast  with  this  greenback  doctrine  one 
finds  the  Democratic  State  convention  of  Massachusetts 
adopting  on  September  2,  1868,  a  resolution  which  stated 
"  that  gold  and  silver  coin  is  the  only  constitutional  legal 
tender."  2 

1  New  York  World,  Sept.  4,  1868. 

2  Ibid. 


367]      STATE  CONVENTIONS  OF  NEW  YORK  IN  1868      ^6y 

The  electoral  ticket1  reported  by  James  F.  Pierce,  of 
Kings,  was  ratified.  Then  followed  nominations  for  the 
remainder  of  the  State  offices.  For  canal  commissioner, 
Oliver  Bascom,  of  Washington  County,  was  preferred  over 
Nathaniel  Milliman,  of  Rensselaer,  by  a  vote  of  76  to  48.* 
David  B.  McNeil,  of  Cayuga,  was  nominated  for  inspector 

1  The  Democratic  Electoral  Ticket  was  as  follows : 
Electors-at-Large — Henry  W.  Slocum,  of  Kings;  Delos  Dewolf,  of 
Oswego. 

1st  district  Lewis  A.  Edwards,  of  Suffolk. 

2nd  "  Isaac  Van  Anden,  of  Kings. 

3rd  "  George  L.  Fox,  of  Kings. 

4th  "  Joseph  Dowling,  of  New  York. 

5th  "  Oswald  Ottendorfer,  of  New  York. 

6th  "  Emaneul  B.  Hart,  of  New  York. 

7th  "  Charles  E.  Loew,  of  New  York. 

8th  "  James  M.  Sweeny,  of  New  York. 

9th  "  Edward  Jones,  of  New  York. 

10th  "  George  B.  Pentz,  of  Westchester, 

nth  "  Egbert  A.  Clark,  of  Sullivan. 

12th  "  David  Van  Schaack,  Columbia. 

13th  "  Manly  B.  Mattice,  Greene. 

14th  "  James  Roy,  Albany. 

15th  "  John  B.  Colby,  Rensselaer. 

16th  "  Ruby  H.  Stone,  of  Clinton. 

17th  "  Francis  D.  Flanders,  Franklin. 

18th  "  Daniel  D.   Campbell,  of   Schenectady. 

19th  "  Simon  B.  Champion,  of  Delaware. 

20th  "  Dewitt  C.  West,  of  Lewis. 

21st  "  James  McQuade,  of  Oneida. 

22nd  "  Matthew  J.  Schoecraft,  of  Madison. 

23rd  "  Oliver  Porter,  of  Cortland. 

24th  "  James  McLean,  of  Seneca. 

25th  "  William  C.  Dryer,  of  Ontario. 

26th  "  Benjamin  N.  Loomis,  of  Broome. 

27th  "  William  R.  Judsori,  of  Chemung. 

28th  "  William  C.  Rowley,  of  Monroe. 

29th  "  James  G.  Shepard,  of  Genesee. 

30th  "  William  G.  Fargo,  of  Erie. 

31st  "  Timothy  D.  Cobb,  of  Chautauqua. 
*  New  York  Times,  Sept.  4,  1868. 


368        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [368 

of  State  prisons,  as  were  Colonel  John  M.  Strong,  of  Syra- 
cuse, and  John  K.  Burke,  of  Monroe.  Mr.  Burke,  who  was 
present  as  a  delegate,  declined  to  be  a  candidate  and  Colonel 
Strong's  name  was  withdrawn  before  the  complete  vote 
had  been  taken,  leaving  Mr.  McNeil  the  field.  Although 
eight  names  x  were  presented  for  clerk  of  the  Court  of  Ap- 
peals, Mr.  E.  O.  Perrin,  of  Queens,  was  unanimously  nomi- 
nated without  taking  a  ballot.  The  State  committee  2  was 
then  announced  and  after  Calvin  Frost,  of  Westchester, 
had  presented  a  resolution  in  memory  of  Peter  Cagger,  the 
convention  adjourned  sine  die. 

Two  papers  of  different  faith,  the  Commercial  Advertiser 
and  the  World,  in  commenting  upon  the  Democratic  candi- 
dates paid  Senator  Murphy  a  graceful  tribute  by  acknowl- 
edging the  excellence  of  his  claims.3  To  prove  the  ability, 
probity  and  popularity  of  Murphy's  successful  rival,  the 
World  published  a  sketch  of  Hoffman's  career,4  and  boldly 
challenged  its  opponents  to  compare  platforms.  Neverthe- 
less, the  World  admitted  that  the  Albany  platform  did  not 
express  the  opinion  of  the  entire  Democracy,  especially  on 
money. 

1  Cf.  footnote  2,  p.  361  supra. 

1  The  Democratic  State  Committee  was  as  follows : 

Members- at-Large — Samuel  J.  Tilden,  of  New  York;  Samuel  North, 
of  Otsego;  Joseph  Warren,  of  Erie. 
1st  district  Peter  B.  Sweeny,  Charles  G.  Cornell. 
2nd      "        W.  A.  Fowler,  Augustus  Ide,  of  Orange. 
3rd      "        Wm.  Cassidy,  of  Albany;  Isaac  McConihe,  of  Rensselaer. 
4th      "        Wm.  J.  Averill,  of  St.  Lawrence;  Isaiah  Blood,  of  Saratoga. 
5th      "        George  H.  San  ford,  John  W.  Barker. 
6th      "        Stephen  S.  Arnot,  N.  Wilson  Parker. 
7th      "        E.  P.  Ross,  C.  C.  B.  Walker. 
8th      "        Henry  A.  Richmond,  James  Jackson,  Jr. 

•New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Sept.  5,  1868;  New  York  World, 
Sept.  3,  1868. 

'Ibid. 


369]      STATE  CONVENTIONS  OF  NEW  YORK  IN  1868      ^69 

The  Sun  contributed  an  editorial  on  the  Democratic  State 
convention  which  was  notable  for  its  rollicking  good 
humor.  It  considered  the  convention  "  a  miracle  of  har- 
mony "  *  in  which  the  solid  masses  of  the  phlegmatic  Teu- 
tons 2  had  worsted  the  fiery,  gallant  sons  of  Erin.  As  for 
the  rival  candidates  for  Governor,  they  were  well  matched,- 
both  being  young  men,  rich  and  exceedingly  good  looking. 
Then  followed  a  minute  comparison  of  the  candidates  as 
to  their  looks.3  This  editorial  was  intended  to  convey  the 
moral  that  matters  of  State  interest  or  names  on  the  State 
ticket  would  occupy  but  a  comparatively  small  place  in  the 
public  mind  throughout  the  canvass.  The  Herald  deigned 
to  give  no  space  editorially  to  the  Democratic  candidates  or 
platform.4  Greeley  merely  pointed  out  the  "  restlessness 
and  discontent  of  a  powerful  wing  of  the  party  under  the 
imperious  yoke  of  Tammany  'V  which  was  made  plainly 
visible. 

1  New  York  Suti,  Sept.  3,  1868. 

2  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  3.  1868.  Contemporaneous  with  the 
Democratic  State  Convention  the  German  Democrats  met  in  conven- 
tion at  Albany  under  the  call  of  Oswald  Ottendorfer.  Chairman  of  the 
German  State  Central  Committee.  This  convention  supported  Hoff- 
man and  urged  a  change  in  the  Excise  Laws. 

•  New  York  Sun,  Sept.  3,  1868.  "  Both  are  exceedingly  good-looking, 
though  not  of  the  same  style  of  beauty.  Mr.  Griswold  is  a  blond, 
with  blue  eyes,  light  hair,  and  mutton-chop  whiskers.  His  move- 
ments are  graceful,  his  manners  elegant.  Mr.  Hoffman  is  a  brun- 
ette, slender,  tall,  stately,  with  fine  black  eyes  tinged  with  melancholy. 
His  hair  is  jet  black,  his  brow  pale  and  thoughtful  like  Hamlet's, 
his  features  finely  chiseled,  his  chin  smooth  and  shapely,  his  mouth 
intellectual  and  kindly,  his  moustache  black  and  impressive,  like  that 
of  a  Spanish  grandee  or  a  first  class  German  metaphysician.  In 
point  of  personal  attractions,  it  would  be  difficult  to  determine  which 
of  the  two  candidates  ought  to  have  the  palm.  If  the  question  were 
left  to  the  ladies,  they  would  find  themselves  puzzled  beyond  any 
precedent  in  history." 

•  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  2-5,  1868. 

•  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  4.  1868. 


370        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [370 

Consistent  with  its  estimate  in  1866,  the  Times  consid- 
ered the  Democratic  choice  for  Governor  creditable  x  as  well 
as  prudent.2  Personally  unobjectionable,  cultured,  experi- 
enced in  administration,  Mr.  Hoffman  was  the  strongest 
man  the  Democracy  could  present.3  With  the  nominee  for 
lieutenant-governor,  Mr.  Beach,  the  Times  was  not  so  fair, 
describing  him  as  "a  gawkey,  good-natured  personage, 
great  of  girth  and  tall  of  stature,  who  timidly  vented  some 
incoherent  vagaries."  4  The  platform  received  no  atten- 
tion from  the  Times.  As  with  the  up-State  editorial  notice 
of  the  Republican  State  convention  so  it  was  with  the  Demo- 
cratic State  convention;  practically  no  attention  was  given 
to  its  proceedings  or  results.  Where  an  up-State  opposi- 
tion paper  gave  it  any  space,  attention  was  directed  to  Judge 
Morris's  attack  on  Lanning  and  Tammany,6  while  the  dis- 
trict party  organs  gave  but  perfunctory  comments.8 

1  New  York  Times,  Sept.  4,  .1868. 
"  Ibid.,  Sept.  3,  1868. 

•  Ibid. 

4  Ibid.,  Sept.  4,  1868. 

•  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  4,  1868. 

•  Albany  Argus,  Sept.  3,  4,  1868;  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Sept.  2-4,  1868. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
The  Presidential  Campaign  of  1868 

Although  the  issues  pending  upon  the  outcome  of  the 
Presidential  election  of  1868  were  doubtless  not  of  such 
vital  importance  to  the  life  of  the  nation  as  those  involved 
in  the  campaign  of  i860,  still  we  may  safely  state  that  with 
the  exception  of  the  latter  campaign,  none  has  been  more 
fraught  with  significance  to  the  political  and  economic 
future  of  the  United  States  than  the  former.1  The  issue 
before  the  country  was,  should  the  Radicals  be  permitted 
to  finish  their  Reconstruction  of  the  South,  or  should  an 
administration  be  returned  which  would  undo  the  work  of 
the  Radical  Congress  with  the  attendant  results. 

After  the  major  conventions  the  campaign  did  not  open 
with  much  eclat,  as  most  of  the  leaders  took  a  respite  at 
the  resorts.  The  newspapers  in  July  indulged  themselves 
chiefly  in  prophecy  according  to  their  different  faiths.  One 
week  after  the  Democratic  convention  the  Times  claimed 
that  already  the  Democrats  were  having  difficulty  to  keep 
up  enthusiasm  for  Seymour.2  The  World  was  sure  that 
nothing  could  save  the  Radicals  from  defeat  in  November.* 
The  Herald  thought  that  New  York  would  go  Republican 
because  Grant  and  Griswold  were  both  liberal  on  the  drink 

1  Fite  in  his  introduction  omits  mention  of  the  campaign  of  1868, 
when  comparing  those  of  1840,  1856,  1864  with  that  of  i860.  Fite,  The 
Presidential  Campaign  of  i860,  Introd.,  ix. 

•  New  York  Times,  July  17,  1868. 

'  New  York  World,  July  20,  1868. 

37i]  371 


372        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [372 

question.1  But  the  Sun  made  the  only  prediction  which 
fully  came  to  pass,  when  it  argued  that  the  Democrats 
would  carry  New  York  in  spite  of  everything  while  the 
nation  went  Republican.2  Nothing  had  occurred  during 
the  year  to  alienate  the  liquor  element  in  and  around  New 
York  City,  hence  the  Sun  maintained  that  the  Democratic 
majority  in  the  State  would  be  practically  the  same  as  the 
previous  year. 

The  Republican  organs  based  their  claims  for  a  Repub- 
lican victory  on  the  popularity  of  Grant  as  contrasted  with 
the  war  record  of  Seymour.  The  Independent  predicted  a 
Republican  victory  on  the  ground  that  the  Republican  plat- 
form, although  not  advanced  enough  to  please  the  Radi- 
cals, was  adapted  to  the  ideas  of  that  wing  of  the  Democ- 
racy which  desired  the  nomination  of  Chase,  while  the 
Democratic  platform  was  too  outrageous  for  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  Democracy.3 

Incidental  to  the  campaign  auguries,  the  usual  display  of 
brotherly  affection  on  the  part  of  certain  papers  was  made 
manifest.  The  Commercial  Advertiser*  warned  Republi- 
cans against  the  support  of  Grant  by  the  Tribune,  while 
the  World  5  took  the  latter  as  its  special  foeman.  Needless 
to  say  the  Tribune  saw  to  its  own  laurels.  The  Independent 
read  the  World  out  of  the  leadership  of  the  Democratic 
party  because  it  was  not  sufficiently  audacious.6 

1  New  York  Herald,  July  21,  1868. 

1  New  York  Sun,  July  14,  1868.  The  Sun  cited  the  following  ma- 
jorities as  proof  of  its  claim: 

Tn  i860  New  York  gave  Lincoln  50,000  majority.  In  1862  New 
York  gave  Democrats  11,000  majority.  In  1866  New  York  gave  Re- 
publicans 14,000  majority.  In  1867  New  York  gave  Democrats 
48,000  majority. 

*  The  Independent,  July  16,  1868. 

4  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  July  17,  1868. 

*  New  York  World,  Aug.  8,  19,  24,  26,  29,  30,  1868. 
e  The  Independent,  Aug.  6,   1868. 


3731  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1868  ^y^ 

The  keynote  of  the  Democratic  campaign  was  given  in  a 
letter  from  Samuel  J.  Tilden  to  the  Seymour  and  Blair 
ratification  meeting  at  Washington.  The  issues  as  Tilden 
saw  them  were  two.  namely,  opposition  to  negro  supremacy, 
and  opposition  to  the  monstrous  fiscal  extravagance  of  the 
Republican  party.1  These  resembled  the  issues  as  the  World 
saw  them,  i.  e.,  reduction  of  the  army  and  navy,  and 
abolishment  of  the  Freedman's  Bureau.2  The  Republicans 
were  thus  forced  to  meet  the  issue. 

In  August  a  campaign  book,  compiled  by  special  com- 
missioner of  the  revenue  David  A.  Wells,  was  circulated 
in  which  the  expenses  of  the  administration  since  the 
War  were  enumerated.3  These  figures  were  hailed  with 
delight  by  the  Democrats,  who  could  now  use  authentic  Re- 
publican figures  to  show  just  how  expensive  and  extrava- 
gant the  Republican  administration  had  been.  "  At  present 
nobody  can  advocate  economy  without  thrusting  a  sword 
into  the  vitals  of  the  Republican  policy,"  said  Tilden.4 

On  the  other  hand,  while  the  Democrats  were  leading 
their  forces  against  the  Republican  extravagance,  Vallan- 
digham  and  other  Democratic  orators  of  the  West  pre- 
tended to  see  in  Seymour's  utterances  an  interpretation  of 
the  Democratic  platform  acceptable  to  Westerners  on  the 
greenback  question,  namely,  the  payment  of  that  portion 
of  the  national  debt  known  as  five-twenties  in  greenbacks.5 

1  New  York  World,  July  21,  1868.  John  Bigelow,  The  Life  of 
Samuel  J.  Tilden,  vol.  i,  pp.  215-17. 

"  New  York  World,  July  24,  1868.  New  York  World,  Oct.  13,  1868. 
The  World  later  defined  the  real  financial  issue  between  the  two  parties 
thus :  "  Whether  we  shall  stop  the  extravagance  which  has  raised  and 
spent  enough  money  since  the  war  to  have  paid  off  all  of  the  5-20 
bonds." 

•  Ibid.,  Aug.  1,  1868.  The  Army  and  Navy  expenses  since  1865  to 
the  publishing  of  this  book  were  $1,050,237,319. 

4  New  York  World,  Oct.  2,  1868. 

5  See  New  York  Herald,  Aug.  16.  1868. 


374        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [374 

A  certain  support  on  this  point  was  given  to  the  Demo- 
crats by  the  Evening  Post  which,  although  it  doubted  the 
constitutionality  of  the  legal  tender  act,  felt  reassured  that 
business  would  be  safe  in  the  event  of  any  change  in  cur- 
rency.1 

As  money  proved  to  be  the  battle  center  of  the  campaign, 
so  in  the  matter  of  personal  politics  did  money-making,  at 
the  government's  expense,  prove  to  be  a  vulnerable  spot 
for  attack  in  the  case  of  John  A.  Griswold.  The  World 
early  discovered  a  mare's  nest  in  the  career  of  Griswold, 
whom  it  called  an  "  imposter  "  and  a  "  confidence  candi- 
date ".2  The  facts  as  set  forth  by  the  World  show  that 
John  A.  Griswold  and  his  partner  John  F.  Winslow  went 
as  sureties  on  Ericsson's  contract.3  This  contract  with  the 
government  to  build  the  Monitor  was  entered  into  July  2, 
1862,  Griswold  and  Winslow  furnishing  the  iron  for  the 
vessel.  In  December,  1863,  Griswold  took  his  seat  in  Con- 
gress as  a  Democrat.  He  voted  against  Colfax  for  speaker, 
Mr.  Henry  G.  Stebbins,  of  New  York  City,  being  his 
choice.  Later  Griswold  voted  for  his  own  petition  for  re- 
lief in  connection  with  a  heavy  loss  4  which  threatened  two 
others  and  himself  on  the  contract.  These  facts,  according 
to  the  Democratic  journals  and  orators,  furnished  prima 

1  New  York  Evening  Post,  Sept.  1,  1868. 

•  New  York  World,  Aug.  27,  1868.  New  York  World,  June  1,  6, 
1868.  The  World  was  no  less  severe  in  its  attacks  on  Grant.  In 
connection  with  his  speech  of  acceptance  it  spoke  of  him  as  a 
"  puppet "  and  a  "  weather  cock."  Grant's  statement  that  he  would 
have  no  policy  of  his  own  "to  interfere  against  the  will  of  the 
people,"  was  a  "  self-pronounced  satire  on  General  Grant's  intellect 
and  moral  independence."  Contrast  with  this,  the  statement  of  the 
Sun  on  Grant's  acceptance,  "  It  is  short,  sharp  and  decisive."  New 
York  Sun,  June  2,  1868. 

•  The  inventor  of  the  Monitor. 

4  New  York  World,  Aug.  12,  1868. 


375]  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1868  ^^ 

facie  proof  of  Griswold's  unsuitability  for  the  office  of 
Governor.  The  Argus  x  was  an  able  second  to  the  World 
in  hurling  this  charge  against  Griswold.  The  Argus 
claimed  that  Griswold  had  made  $100,000  for  himself  and 
partner  on  the  Monitor.  The  Republican  journals,  es- 
pecially the  Troy  Times,2  defended  Griswold's  action  by 
showing  the  tremendous  advantage  the  victory  of  the  Mon- 
itor over  the  Merrimac  gave  to  the  North  at  a  very  critical 
period.  Griswold's  act  in  putting  up  the  money  to  build  the 
Monitor  was  lauded  as  the  highest  example  of  patriotism. 
The  Times  supported  Griswold,  backing  the  assertion  of  the 
Troy  Times  that  the  Monitor  had  been  built  at  the  per- 
sonal expense  of  Griswold  and  his  associates  and  was 
owned  by  them  at  the  time  of  the  Merrimac  encounter.8 
These  statements  and  those  of  Griswold's  supporters  *  to 
the  same  effect  were  later  branded  as  false  by  Secretary  of 
the  Navy  Gideon  Welles.  "  The  work  of  building  the 
Monitor,"  said  Welles, 

was  paid  for  as  it  progressed.  Six  payments  were  made  be- 
tween the  middle  of  November  and  3d  of  March,  before  the 
vessel  was  completed  and  delivered.  The  last  and  final  pay- 
ment, save  the  reservation  which  by  contract  was  to  be  re- 
tained until  after  a  satisfactory  test,  was  made  before  she  left 
New  York  on  her  trial  trip.5 

Although  Welles  makes  it  clear  *  that  he  was  up  in  arms 

1  Albany  Argus,  Aug.  4,  1868. 

•  See  Troy  Times,  Aug.  15,  1868.    See  New  York  Sun,  Aug.  18,  1868. 

*  New  York  Times,  Aug.  17,  1868. 

4  Welles  singled  out  General  Benjamin  F.  Butler  especially  as  one 
who  had  made  false  statements  on  the  floor  of  the  House  relative 
to  Griswold. 

5  The  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  vol.  iii,  p.  413,  also  see  vol.  i,  pp. 
213-215. 

6  Ibid.,  vol.   iii,  pp.  412-414.    "  John   A.   Griswold,   a  wealthy  iron- 


376        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [376 

against  the  attempts  made  by  Griswold's  friends  to  slander 
the  navy  department,  still  his  authoritative  statements  as 
Secretary  of  the  Navy  would  seem  to  deny  any  validity  for 
Griswold's  claims. 

Hoffman  made  his  opening  campaign  speech  at  Buffalo 
on  September  8th  in  which  he  proclaimed  that  the  Demo- 
crats had  but  one  object,  i.  c,  the  public  good.  He  praised 
the  conduct  of  the  War  and  assailed  the  Radicals  for  not 
having  lifted  the  country  out  of  financial  anarchy  three 
years  later.1  The  World  ably  seconded  Hoffman,  claim- 
ing that  under  Seymour  the  only  danger  from  anarchy 
would  be  the  failure  of  the  Republicans  to  submit  to  the 
party  in  power.2 

The  Times  devoted  its  strength  to  a  financial  rebuttal. 
No  one  but  the  Democrats  were  to  blame  for  a  war  the 
price  of  which  was  $4,07 1,030,06a3  The  plausible  equal 
tax  on  all  property  was  regarded  by  the  Times  as  the  weak- 
est plank  in  the  Democratic  platform  because  a  tax  on  gov- 
ernment bonds  could  not  be  made  in  view  of  recent  Su- 
preme Court  decisions.  The  Tribune  and  the  Evening  Post 
directed   their   attack    against    Hoffman's    relationship    to 

master  and  Member  of  Congress,  has  been  nominated  for  Governor 
of  New  York  by  the  Radicals,  and  there  has  been,  and  is.  a  per- 
sistent attempt  to  give  him  false  credit  in  regard  to  the  Monitor, 
and  this  by  systematic  and  deliberate  falsehood  and  injustice  to 
the  Department. — Yet  the  Hon.  Mr.  Griswold,  knowing  the  facts,  him- 
self a  party,  sat  quietly  in  his  seat  and  took  to  himself  this  false  credit 
without  one  word  of  explanation  or  justice  to  the  Navy  Department. 
His  biographers  have,  I  am  persuaded  by  his  connivance,  not  only 
made  the  same  statement  as  Butler,  but  have  gone  farther  and  tried 
to  ignore  the  Navy  Department,  or  have  slandered  and  belied  it  by 
declaring  the  Secretary  was  opposed,  or  only  gave  a  negative  support, 
to  Mr.  Griswold  and  his  associates." 

1  New  York  Sun,  Sept.  9,  1868. 

■  New  York  World,  Sept.  7,  1868. 

•  New  York  Times,  Sept.  2,  1868. 


377]  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1868  ^yy 

Tammany  Hall.  Hoffman  was  but  the  "  pliant  tool  "  and 
"  gyPsy  candidate  "of  Peter  B.  Sweeny  and  William  M. 
Tweed.  Greeley  stated,  we  know  now  rightly,  that  with 
Hoffman  in  office  it  virtually  meant  Sweeny  '  for  Gover- 
nor with  Tweed  as  Governor's  assistant.2 

The  Maine  elections  3  gave  the  first  definite  indication  of 
the  results  to  be  expected  in  November.  The  Republican 
Governor,  Chamberlain,  was  re-elected  over  Pillsbury,  the 
Democratic  candidate,  by  a  20,000  majority,  an  increase  of 
t 0,000.  Tn  New  York  the  Maine  results  were  variously 
received.  The  Times  was  complacent.  At  the  Cooper 
I  'nion  monster  mass  meeting  held  on  the  night  of  Septem- 
ber 14th,  Henry  J.  Raymond  argued  that  all  the  country 
needed  was  four  years  of  quiet.4  Tn  his  arguments  he  was 
seconded  by  General  Kilpatrick  and  Charles  S.  Spencer. 
But  Greeley  apparently  was  not  deceived  by  the  situation 
in  Maine,  for  he  warned  the  New  York  State  Republicans 
to  force  the  righting,  as  the  situation  in  the  State  while  hope- 
ful was  far  from  safe.*  The  World  assured  all  that  the 
Republicans  by  their  frenzy  of  joy  over  Maine  only 
showed  their  fear  of  defeat  in  November.6  Such  sureness 
was  not  displayed  by  the  Sun,  although  it  credited  the 
Maine  election  to  the  folly  of  the  Democrats  in  their  choice 
of  leaders.7 

The  Herald,  also,  read  into  the  Maine  election  Repub- 

1    Sweeny  furnished  the  brains  for  the  Tweed  Ring. 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  5,  1868 ;  New  York  Evening  Post,  Sept. 
3,  20,  1868. 

■  The  September  elections  in  Vermont,  Maine,  Connecticut,  Colorado, 
and  New  Mexico  all  returned  Republican  majorities. 

4  New  York  Times,  Sept.  15,  1868. 

•  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  16,  1868. 
6  New  York  World,  Sept.   17,  1868. 

•  New  York  Sun,  Sept.  15,  1868. 


378        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [378 

lican  victory  both  nationally  and  in  the  State.  Its  argument 
in  connection  with  the  State  is  interesting.  The  Herald 
maintained  that  in  1867  the  Germans  and  Irish  of  the  State 
had  rebelled  against  the  license  law.  Also  the  friends  of 
Seward  and  Weed  in  the  custom  houses,  the  post  offices, 
the  internal  revenue  bureau  and  in  every  school  district 
of  the  State  had  voted  against  the  Radical  ticket.  The 
Grant  men  had  either  voted  with  the  Democrats  or  re- 
mained away  from  the  polls.  In  1868,  the  Herald  pointed 
out  that  all  was  different.  The  Democrats  during  the  past 
winter  with  a  majority  in  one  branch  of  the  legislature 
and  possessing  the  power  to  force  from  the  Governor  a 
valuable  modification  of  the  metropolitan  excise  law  re- 
moving all  offensive  measures,  betrayed  their  friends  and 
obstructed  any  alteration  of  the  law  in  order  that  they 
might  retain  it  as  an  argument  for  another  campaign 
"  Liquor  men/'  reassured  the  Herald,  "  will  not  be  deceived 
another  time,  besides,  Griswold  is  for  them."  *  Nationally 
the  Herald  believed  Grant  would  be  elected  because  of  the 
Democrats'  stupidity  in  adhering  to  their  platform  of  1864/ 
Or  as  the  Independent  put  it,  a  considerable  body  of  voters 
who  were  not  satisfied  with  Republican  leaders  and  ideals, 
still  would  vote  for  Grant  because  of  the  war  talk  of  the 
Democrats  and  Blair,3  the  Tammany  convention  methods 
and  the  financial  policy  of  the  Democrats.4 

The  Republicans  followed  the  advice  of  Greeley,  re- 
doubling their  activities  in  the  mid-campaign.  John  A. 
Griswold  was  very  active.  The  tenor  of  his  arguments 
was  largely  national.     He  believed  that  the  people  should 

1  New  York  Herald,  Sept.  17,  1868. 
•  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  2,  1868. 
8  The  Independent,  Sept.  24,  1868. 
'Ibid.,  Oct.  15,  1868. 


379]  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1868  ^g 

help  the  victors  maintain  peace.1  He  did  not  believe  that 
the  late  rebel  States  and  their  rebellious  citizens  should  be 
admitted  at  once.  Further,  a  large  part  of  his  public  ad- 
dresses were  directed  toward  the  questions  of  national 
finances,  showing  that  the  Radicals  had  reduced  the  war 
debt  one-quarter  and  had  relieved  the  country  of  taxation 
to  the  amount  of  $167,000,000  per  annum.2 

The  Republican  State  ratification  meeting  was  held  at 
Cooper  Union  on  September  22d.  John  A.  Griswold,  Gen- 
eral J.  C  Fremont,  General  John  B.  McKean  and  Martin 
I.  Townsend  addressed  the  meeting.  The  speeches  were  all 
directed  against  the  financial  measures  of  the  Democrats. 
Martin  I.  Townsend  believed  in  pushing  the  debt  and  tax 
questions  until  they  drew  blood.3  Five  nights  prior  to  this 
meeting  a  similar  gathering  had  been  held  at  Cooper  Union 
in  commemoration  of  the  Battle  of  Antietam,  at  which 
8,000  persons  had  heard  the  enthusiastic  addresses  of 
Generals  Pleasanton,  Sickles,  Kilpatrick,  Colonels  G.  G. 
Sharpe,  and  Deming,  and  Senator  John  Sherman.  All  the 
powers  of  oratory,  and  argument  were  employed  to  keep  the 
soldiers  of  the  State  from  joining  the  Democratic  ranks. 
Senator  Sherman  assured  all  that  Ohio  and  Indiana  would 
follow  Vermont  and  Maine.4  The  position  of  Senator 
Sherman  on  the  five-twenty  bonds  of  the  United  States, 
namely,  that  they  could  be  paid  off  in  greenbacks,5  gave  the 
Democrats  a  capital  argument  in  which  they  claimed  that 
he  had  surrendered  and  spiked  the  guns  of  his  party.8 

1  At  Poughkeepsie.     New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  17,  1868. 

•  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  18,  1868. 

•  Ibid.,  Sept.  23,  1868. 

4  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  18,  1868. 

•  Cf.  ibid.,  Aug.  25,  1868.    Doubtless  a  statement  made  by  Sherman 
for  campaign  purposes. 

•  New  York  World,  Aug.  26-28,  1868. 


380        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [380 

The  Republicans  made  special  appeals  also  to  the  Irish 
and  the  German  elements  in  New  York  City  at  Cooper 
Union  en  September  30th  and  October  7th  respectively,  at 
which  meetings  the  rights  of  citizens  to  the  customs  of  their 
fatherland  were  upheld.  Yet  it  was  pointed  out  that  re- 
gard must  be  given  to  the  rights  and  even  the  prejudices 
of  others.1 

While  the  campaign  was  thus  in  progress  in  New  York 
State,  elections  were  held  in  Pennsylvania,  Indiana,  Ne- 
braska and  Ohio.  The  verdict  in  these  States  was  unmis- 
takably for  Grant.2  The  substantial  predictions  of  Henry 
W.  Beecher,  uttered  four  days  prior  to  the  October  elec- 
tions,3 came  true.  Greeley  could  not  see  how,  any  way  we 
might  figure,  Seymour  could  be  elected  in  view  of  the  Oc- 
tober elections.4  The  World  pretended  to  consider  the  re- 
sults as  indicative  of  a  fine  showing  for  the  Democrats,  con- 
sidering that  they  had  been  proclaimed  dead  by  their  oppo- 
nents two  years  before.  Said  the  World:  "  If  the  military 
prestige  of  General  Grant  had  been  out  of  the  scale,  we 
should  have  succeeded;  or  that  remaining,  if  the  perver- 
sions of  General  Blair's  position  had  been  out  of  the  scale, 
we  should  have  succeeded.,,  5  Thurlow  Weed  was  especially 
severe  in  his  condemnation  of  Blair,  whom  he  classed  with 
Wade  Hampton,  Wise,  Vance,  Forrest  and  Hill.     "  These 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  1,  8,  1868. 

•  Ibid.,  Oct.  14,  1868. 

1  New  York  Times,  Oct.  10,  1868.  At  Brooklyn  Academy  of  Music. 
Beecher,  also,  wrote  a  letter  at  this  time  on  the  condition  of  the 
country  in  which  he  urged  the  need  of  better  administration.  The 
World  gave  special  attention  to  this  letter  and  replied  that  the  claim 
was  true  but  questioned  whether  Grant  had  the  necessary  experience 
or  qualities  to  give  the  administration  demanded.  New  York  World, 
Oct.  12,  1868;  New  York  Evening  Post,  Oct.  10,  1868. 

4  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  14,  1868. 

6  New  York  World,  Oct.  15,  1868. 


381]  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1868  ^l 

men  have  determined  to  make  1868  in  the  likeness  of  i860. 
Cover  up  their  purposes  as  they  may,  the  people  penetrate 
the  disguise  and  detect  the  sham."  '  The  Herald  and  the 
Sun  both  acknowledged  the  certainty  of  Grant's  election  in 
November.2  But  the  Sun  maintained  that  the  October  re- 
sults would  not  alter  the  hold  of  the  Democrats  upon  New 
York  State. 

One  immediate  result  of  the  Democratic  defeat  in  the 
October  elections  was  a  demand  on  the  part  of  the  World, 
backed  by  the  National  Intelligencer,  that  a  change  be  made 
in  the  Democratic  ticket.  On  October  17th  the  World 
openly  blamed  Blair  for  the  defeat 3  and  two  days  later  it 
admitted  that  the  Democratic  situation  was  very  doubtful. 
Calling  on  Seymour,  as  the  only  man  who  could  do  so,  it 
asked  him  to  lead  them  out  of  the  wilderness.4  But  the 
World's  invitation  to  Blair  was  of  a  vastly  different  import. 
"  Governor  Seymour  can  now  aid  us  much  but  General 
Blair  can  aid  us  far  more,  in  a  different  way,  by  a  chivalric 
action  superior  to  all  eloquence."  The  cry  for  Blair's  with- 
drawal was  taken  up  in  many  quarters.  Blair's  chief  de- 
fender proved  to  be  Horace  Greeley,  who  facetiously  spoke 
of  the  Democratic  ticket  as  "  a  dem'd  moist  unpleasant 
body  "/'  Blair  publicly  announced  at  St.  Louis  that  he  was 
ready  to  withdraw  if  his  friends  thought  best.8 

Washington  was  thrown  into  a  flutter.  George  Pendle- 
ton and  Washington  McLean,7  of  Cincinnati,  hurried  to 

1  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Oct.  14,  1868. 
•New  York  Herald,  Oct.  15,  16,  1868;  New  York  Sun,  Oct.   I,  15, 
1868. 

•  New  York  World,  Oct.  17,  1868: 
'Ibid.,  Oct.  19.  1868. 

*  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  17,  1868. 
•New  York  Times,  Oct.  18,  1868. 

T  McLean  controlled  the  Cincinnati  Gazette  and  the  Cincinnati 
Enquirer. 


382        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [382 

the  Capital.  Chase  again  loomed  up  as  a  candidate.  Presi- 
dent Johnson  was  spoken  of  for  Seymour's  place  with  Gen- 
erals Ewing  and  Hancock,  or  Governor  English,  of  Con- 
necticut, for  Blair's  place.  Hancock,  however,  refused  to 
consider  second  place  and  Seymour  announced  that  any 
change  in  the  ticket  must  necessarily  include  him.1  The 
Evening  Post  suggested  that  the  Democrats  drop  Seymour 
and  Blair  and  substitute  Grant  and  Colfax.2  As  no  one 
was  found  ready  to  stand  in  the  breach  and  take  up  the 
burden  of  unpopularity  which  Seymour  and  Blair  were  too 
weak  to  lift,3  and  as,  in  New  York,  Samuel  J.  Tilden, 
August  Belmont  and  Augustus  Schell  held  firm  for  the 
ticket,  it  weathered  the  attack  of  the  World. 

For  its  display  of  the  white  feather  the  World  was 
forced  to  stand  scathing  attacks  from  the  Democratic  press 
throughout  the  country.4  The  Argus,  ever  a  staunch  Demo- 
crat, was  moved  to  express  its  disgust  over  the  situation. 

Governor  Seymour  cannot  cut  loose  from  General  Blair.  He 
cannot  arbitrarily  relinquish  a  candidacy  he  did  not  seek,  and 
which  was  forced  upon  him  as  a  duty.  And  who  would  take 
the  vacated  post  ?  Who  would  covet  the  dubious  honor  ?  .  .  . 
The  game  of  corruption  and  fraud  cannot  twice  be  played. 
The  money  raised  to  stimulate,  and  to  bribe  voters,  has  been 
spent.5 

It  was  thought  by  many  that  Washington  McLean,  who 
controlled  the  Cincinnati  Gazette  and  the  Cincinnati  En- 
quirer, inspired  the  World  to  demand  the  change  in  the 

1  New  York  World,  Oct.  19,  1868. 

•New  York  Evening  Post,  Oct.  16,  1868. 

8  See  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Oct.  16,  1868. 

4  Newark  (N.  J.)  Democrat,  Oct.  19,  1868;  Rochester  Express,  Oct. 
18,  1868;  Hartford  Times,  Oct.  19,  1868;  Boston  Post,  Oct.  18,  1868; 
The  Independent,  Oct.  22,  1868. 

•Albany  Argus,  Oct.  18,  1868. 


383]  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1868  383 

ticket,  as  it  was  he  who  at  once  revived  the  clamor  for 
Chase.1  The  Rochester  Daily  Democrat  believed,  never- 
theless, that  the  World,  the  National  Intelligencer  and 
other  Democratic  papers  wanted  Seymour  and  Blair  to 
resign  because  the  South  was  dropping  away.2 

The  Republicans  continued  their  attack  on  Blair  for  his 
insistence  that  Grant  once  in  the  White  House  would  never 
leave  it  alive.3  Seymour  was  ridiculed  for  the  implied  bas- 
ing of  his  candidacy  upon  two  grounds,  namely,  that  Re- 
construction was  a  failure  therefore  he  should  be  elected, 
and  that  he  would  be  unable  to  do  anything  if  he  were 
elected  President  therefore  he  should  be  elected.4 

The  War  Democrats  who  were  acting  with  the  Republi- 
cans held  the  last  great  mass  meeting  of  the  Republican 
campaign  at  Cooper  Union  on  October  21st.  It  is  illumi- 
nating to  note  that  the  list  of  vice-presidents  for  the  meet- 
ing contained  names  of  such  prominence  in  the  affairs  of 
State  as  William  F.  Havemeyer,  William  B.  Astor,  Alex- 
ander T.  Stewart,  Aaron  Vanderpoel,  John  Jacob  Astor, 
Jacob  A.  Westervelt,  Henry  G.  Stebbins,  C.  V.  S.  Roose- 
velt, James  J.  Roosevelt,  W.  H.  Webb,  John  C.  Green, 
Robert  L.  Stuart,  Edmund  H.  Schermerhorn,  Stephen  Phil- 
bin,  Henry  Clews,  Peter  Cooper,  Cornelius  Vanderbilt, 
Samuel  Sloan,  and  William  J.  McAlpine.5  The  chief 
speaker  was  Judge  Edwards  Pierrepont  who  attacked  the 
Democrats  on  their  War  record,  revolutionary  utterances 
and  prevalence  of  fraud.  Pierrepont  was  he  who  had 
knifed  General  Dix  two  years  previously  and  had  brought 

1  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  20,  1868. 

1  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Oct.  21,  1868. 

•  New  York  Times,  Oct.  20,  1868. 

*New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  27,  1868;  New  York  Times,  Oct.  30,  1868. 

•  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  22,  1868. 


384        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [384 

Hoffman  forward.1  When  Pierrepont  publicly  announced 
himself  for  Grant  and  Griswold,  his  letter  acted  as  a  bomb 
shell  in  the  Democratic  camp.2 

Blair  invaded  the  East  to  defend  himself  against  the 
charge  of  being  a  revolutionist.  At  Tammany  Hall  on  Oc- 
tober 27th  he  cast  the  charge  back  upon  his  political  ene- 
mies 3  of  the  Republican  party.  The  Herald  vigorously 
defended  Blair,  arguing  that  once  in  office  he  would  natur- 
ally become  conservative.4  The  World  found  it  difficult 
to  hide  Blair  under  a  bushel.  It  openly  counseled  that 
everything  in  the  State  and  the  nation  depended  upon  oc- 
cupying public  attention  with  Seymour."'  When  Blair  came 
East,  Seymour  entered  the  West  in  the  hope  that  a  change 
of  location  might  induce  a  reaction  for  the  better.6 

According  to  the  World,  Hoffman  was  strong  in  the 
State  but  it  deemed  the  electoral  ticket  of  greater  import- 
ance. From  the  middle  of  October  it  devoted  its  entire 
editorial  strength  to  carrying  New  York.  It  made  further 
assaults  upon  Horace  Greeley  who  had  been  directing  a 
large  share  of  his  attention  to  disclosing  election  frauds,7 
particularly  those  by  Judge  George  G.  Barnard,8  who  made 
such  a  unique  record  for  rapid  naturalization. 

The  Democratic  State  committee's  address  was  issued  by 
August  Belmont  on  October  21st,  in  which  the  extrava- 
gance of  the  Republicans  was  denounced.  August  Bel- 
mont then  retired  to  Europe  where  he  could  take  the  Demo- 

1  Vide  supra,  pp.  105,  106. 

2  Syracuse   Daily    Courier   and    Union,    Oct.    14.    1868;    New    York 
World,  Oct.  13,  1868. 

•  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  28,  1868.  *  Ibid.,  Oct.  30,  1868. 

3  New  York  World,  Oct.  21,  1868. 

•  New  York  Herald,  Oct.  28,  1868. 

T  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  15 ;  Oct.  15,  16,  1868. 
« Ibid.,  Oct.  23,  26.  1868. 


385  j  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1868  ^ 

cratic  defeat  in  safety.1  On  October  27th  the  Republican 
State  committee  issued  its  address  to  the  people,  in  which 
it  raked  the  Democracy  of  the  nation  fore  and  aft  for  at- 
tempting to  excite  the  war  passions  again,  and  the  Democ- 
racy of  the  State  for  its  political  jobbery  in  illegal  natural- 
ization at  $2.00  per  person.2  The  Commercial  Advertiser 
added  its  voice  against  the  naturalization  frauds  and  urged 
the  men  of  New  York  City  to  overthrow  fraud  and  vote  for 
Griswold  who  had  saved  the  commerce  of  New  York  City 
by  building  the  Monitor.3  Just  before  election  a  proclama- 
tion was  issued  by  Mayor  Hoffman,  in  which  the  Mayor 
warned  all  Democrats  against  the  Republicans  as  dangerous 
men  seeking  to  discredit  the  Democracy  and  turn  attention 
from  their  own  guilt  by  unscrupulously  gross  and  un- 
founded charges  against  those  high  in  authority.  The 
proclamation  also  flayed  the  federal  grand  jury  then  in  ses- 
sion for  bringing  in  indictments.  Greeley's  reply  to  Hoff- 
man's proclamation  was  characteristic. 

The  Republicans  of  this  city  are,  as  they  have  always  been,  a 
minority.  They  would  not  be  if  the  city  were  not  governed  so 
as  to  make  her  vast  array  of  thieves,  emigrant-swindlers,  sailor- 
pluckers,  blacklegs,  pocketbook-choppers,  baggage-smashers 
and  brothel-keepers  a  unit  against  them  .  .  .  There  is  no  vice, 
there  is  no  crime,  no  outlook  of  human  depravity,  that  is  not 
made  to  bring  grist  to  the  Democratic  mill.  ...  Of  the  in- 
famous "  Ring  "  of  swindlers  who  misrule  and  plunder  us,  we 
ask  only  .  .  .  that  they  do  not  rob  us  outright  of  our  votes 
by  stuffing  the  ballot-boxes  with  ballots  cast  by  "  repeaters  " 
and  unnaturalized  or  fraudulently-naturalized  aliens.4 

1  New  York  Sun,  Oct.  21,  1868. 

*  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  27,  1868. 

•  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Oct.  29,   1868. 
4  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  2,  1868. 


386        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [386 

In  striking  contrast  with  the  lethargy  of  the  up-State 
leaders  and  journals  in  connection  with  the  State  conven- 
tions of  both  parties  we  find  a  refreshing  activity  over  the 
national  and  State  campaigns.  The  Republicans  held  three 
monster  mass  meetings  in  Syracuse  on  September  8th,  Oc- 
tober 2nd,  and  October  28th.  The  first  meeting  was  ad- 
dressed by  Carl  Schurz  in  German ; l  at  the  second,  John 
Griswold  and  Chauncey  Depew  spoke.  Griswold  devoted 
his  attention  to  proving  that  the  financial  issue  had  been  ex- 
travagantly overdrawn  by  the  Democrats.2  Depew  con- 
trasted the  Chicago  and  New  York  platforms.  The  third 
meeting  was  held  to  draw  the  Irish  vote  to  the  Republi- 
cans.3 The  Irish  and  German  vote  up-State  was  courted  by 
the  Republicans  on  the  ground  that  the  Democratic  party 
had  made  no  emphatic  assertion  or  attempt  to  enforce  the 
claims  of  adopted  American  citizens,  while  they  had  seen 
their  claims  vindicated  by  a  Republican  Congress.4 

Roscoe  Conkling  returned  to  Utica  from  the  Rocky 
Mountains  about  October  1st  and,  after  an  address  at 
Cooper  Union  one  week  later,  devoted  his  splendid  ener- 
gies to  defeating  his  brother-in-law,  Horatio  Seymour,  in 
Oneida  and  adjoining  counties.  While  canvassing  one  day 
with  his  friend  Benjamin  Allen,  Conkling  met  and  shook 
hands  with  a  swarthy  Irishman,  an  employee  of  Allen's. 
Allen  said,  "  Senator,  Black  Paddy,  as  we  call  him,  has 
turned  Democrat.,,  "  How  so?  "  queried  Mr.  Conkling. 
With  the  ready  wit  of  his  nation  "  Black  Paddy  "  replied, 
"  Shure,  sir,  oi'm  payin'  ye  a  compliment  in  votin'  for  yer 
brother-in-law."  5 

1  Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  Sept.  9,  1868. 

"  Ibid.,  Oct.  3,  1868. 

•  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Oct.  29,  1868. 

4  Syracuse  Daily  Standard,  Oct.  29,  1868. 

1  Alfred  R.  Conkling,  Life  and  Letters  of  Roscoe  Conkling,  pp.  312-13. 


387]  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1868  ?fij 

Syracuse  was  likewise  the  center  of  the  Democratic  up- 
State  activities.  Their  most  important  meeting  was  held 
on  September  13th  at  which  John  Hoffman  and  Richard 
O'Gorman  spoke.  Hoffman,  as  at  Buffalo  and  Rochester, 
devoted  his  attention  to  the  national  debt  and  the  unnec- 
essary expenses  to  which  the  Republicans  had  put  the  gov- 
ernment. The  up-State  Democratic  papers  gave  almost 
their  entire  editorial  strength  to  attacking  the  Republicans 
upon  these  points.1  The  aim  of  the  Democrats,  as  inter- 
preted by  the  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  was  to  push  the 
matters  of  debt  and  taxation  upon  the  public  attention,  thus 
to  divert  the  public  mind  from  the  question  of  Reconstruc- 
tion and  the  possibility  of  another  civil  war.2  The  Syra- 
cuse Daily  Journal,  also,  attempted  to  show  how  a  Demo- 
cratic victory  would  menace  free  labor,  stating  that  no 
help  would  be  hired  in  the  South  unless  the  laborer  prom- 
ised to  vote  for  Seymour  and  Blair,  and  that  those  already 
in  service  had  been  warned  that  their  failure  to  vote  for 
the  Democratic  nominees  would  mean  the  loss  of  their 
jobs.8 

The  Republican  stronghold  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
State  was  the  scene  of  a  vigorous  campaign.  But  the 
Democratic  opposition  in  the  northern  counties  melted  after 
the  announcement  of  the  October  elections.4  Yet  the  Syra- 
cuse Daily  Courier  and  Union  had  sufficient  faith  in  its 
convictions  to  hotly  claim  States  conceded  to  be  Radical.5 
"  Cowards  lose  the  fight  ere  it  is  half  begun — brave  men 
never,"  was  the  slogan  of  the  Daily  Courier  and  Union. 

1  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Sept.  14,  Oct.  I,  7,  1868. 

Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Aug.  17,  Sept.  11,  Oct.  27,  1868. 
'  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  14,  1868. 
*  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  Sept.  14,  1868. 
4  Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal,  Oct.  15,  1868. 
8  Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union,  Oct.  16,  1868. 


^88        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [388 

The  Radical  up-State  press  in  general  used  the  September 
and  October  elections  as  a  moral  for  the  campaign.  The 
Albany  Evening  Journal  summed  up  the  issues  of  the  presi- 
dential campaign  as  follows:  1.  "  Reconstruction  is  substan- 
tially accomplished.  Are  you  going  to  approve  of  it?  2. 
It  cost  money  to  put  down  the  Democratic  rebellion.  Are 
you  going  to  join  the  Democrats  in  repudiating  the  just 
war  debts?  "  x  It  further  indicted  Seymour  on  three  counts, 
namely,  inciting  to  riot,  yielding  to  rioters  their  demands 
on  the  government  at  the  peril  of  the  nation,  and  threaten- 
ing the  President  of  the  United  States  with  the  violence  of 
the  people,  if  he  proceeded  in  efforts  vitally  necessary  to  the 
salvation  of  the  Union.2  Throughout  the  campaign  the 
Evening  Journal  especially  assailed  Seymour  for  his  War 
record  and  urged  Griswold's  election  because  the  State  was 
in  need  of  a  sound  financial  system.3  But  by  October  21st 
the  Evening  Journal  apparently  gave  up  hope  of  electing 
Griswold.4 

Roberts  gave  the  Utica  Morning  Herald  a  very  conser- 
vative tone,  constantly  warning  the  Radicals  not  to  become 
over  confident.'-  The  questions  of  national  import  received 
chief  attention,  especially  the  idea  of  State  sovereignty. 
Roberts  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  States  rights  as  defined 
by  the  constitution,  but  not  in  State  sovereignty.6  The  only 
matter  of  State  interest  to  attract  continual  attention  from 
the  Morning  Herald  was  the  lack  of  economy  under  the 
"  Ring  "  in  New  York  City.7    The  Rochester  Daily  Demo- 

1  Albany  Evening  Journal,  July  17,  1868. 
8  Albany  Evening  Journal,  July  17,  1868. 
1  Ibid.,  Sept.  9,  24,  25,  Oct.  10,  11,  12,  1868. 

4  Ibid.,  Oct.  21,  1868. 

5  Utica  Morning  Herald,  Sept.  3,  4,  1868. 
•  Ibid.,  Sept.  9,  1868. 

T  Ibid.,  Sept.  25,  30,  Oct.  6,  20,  21,  22,  23,  1868. 


389]  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1868  389 

crat,  also,  scored  the  "  Ring  "  in  New  York  City  for  re- 
sorting to  naturalization  frauds.1  The  Daily  Democrat  in 
the  early  campaign  developed  a  special  fight  of  its  own  over 
Lewis  Selye,  the  Radical  candidate  for  Congress  from 
Monroe,  whom  it  accused  of  supporting  the  Democratic 
cause  with  money.  Although  supported  by  the  Rochester 
Union  Advertiser 2  and  a  host  of  friends  Selye  resigned. 
The  Daily  Democrat,  after  investigation  of  the  facts,  ad- 
mitted that  it  had  said  things  which  it  wished  were  unsaid.8 
As  suggested  the  Rochester  Daily  Democrat  and  the 
Rochester  Union  Advertiser  enlivened  their  local  campaign 
by  a  merry  fight,  as  did  the  Express  and  the  Daily  Courier 
in  Buffalo.  The  Buffalo  Express,  aside  from  giving  atten- 
tion to  the  national  campaign,  devoted  its  local  interests  to 
advocating  improvements  for  the  Erie  canal  and  censuring 
Seymour  for  his  opposition  to  its  improvement  and  en- 
largement.4 The  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  advancing  the 
usual  arguments  against  the  debt  and  Republican  extrava- 
gance,8 reviewed  Griswold's  War  record  as  a  govern- 
ment contractor,9  and  sneered  at  Grant's  statesmanship 
judged  by  his  short  speeches.  Further,  it  condoned  the 
naturalization  frauds  in  New  York  City.7  But  like  its  local 
opponent  the  matter  of  water  ways  and  their  effect  on 
Buffalo  held  its  chief  local  attention.  It  urged  the  voters 
of  Erie  County  to  remember  that  Roscoe  Conkling  voted 
for  the  Niagara  ship  canal  on  May  1,  1866,  and  received 
the  United  States  Senatorship  for  it.    Griswold,  also,  voted 

1  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Oct.  6,  Nov.  2,  1868. 

*  Democratic. 

8  Rochester  Daily  Democrat,  Sept.  14,  1868. 
4  Buffalo  Express,  Oct.  17,  Nov.  2,  1868. 
6  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Aug.  17,  Sept.  11, 

•  Ibid.,  July  22,   1868. 
T  Buffalo  Daily  Courier,  Sept.  7.  1868. 


3QO        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [390 

for  it  and  was  to  be  made  Governor.  This  ship  canal  it 
was  believed  would  ruin  the  trade  of  the  Erie  and  hence 
the  shipping  of  Buffalo.1 

The  last  event  of  importance  in  the  up-State  campaign 
was  the  appearance  of  William  H.  Seward  at  his  old  home 
in  Auburn.  There  on  October  31st  he  made  an  address  to 
his  neighbors  which  caught  the  attention  of  every  one  in 
both  parties.  Seward  had  remained  silent  throughout  the 
campaign,  a  fact  which  was  interpreted  to  mean  disap- 
proval of  his  party's  candidates.  The  old  leader  pleaded 
the  burden  of  his  duties  as  Secretary  of  State  and  inade- 
quate strength  to  undertake  an  active  part  in  the  campaign. 
Seward  stated  that  in  his  belief  the  late  rebel  States  could 
not  be  safely  intrusted  to  any  men  but  those  "  drawn  from 
and  representing  that  class  of  citizens  who  maintained  the 
government  in  the  prosecution  of  the  Civil  War  and  in  the 
abolition  of  slavery."  2  He  reviewed  the  history  of  the 
leading  political  parties,  and  commended  Johnson,  but  he 
gave  slight  attention  to  the  candidates  before  the  country. 
Seward's  hopeful  generalities,  in  short,  manifested  little  of 
his  old  mental  vigor.  "  Seward's  speech,"  said  Andrew  D. 
White,  "  was  an  unfortunate  ending  to  a  great  career."  3 

On  the  eve  and  the  day  of  election  the  Republican  journals 
were  filled  with  presentment  of  the  gigantic  frauds  which 
were  to  be  perpetrated.  The  county  clerk  of  Orange 
County  was  under  arrest  and  the  county  judge  was  threat- 
ened with  arrest  over  naturalization  frauds.  In  New  York 
County  the  gross  frauds  which  we  now  know  were  carried 
on,  were  violently  denounced  by  the  Republican  organs  to 
no  avail.     In  Brooklyn  a  severe  quarrel  broke  out  between 

1  Buffalo  Daily  Courier  Oct.  27,  28,  29,  1868. 

1  Seward's  Works,  vol.  v,  pp.  540-558. 

3  Autobiography  of  Andrew  D.  White,  vol.  i,  pp.  150-51. 


391  ]  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  OF  1868  ^gi 

the  two  Republican  members  of  the  board  of  police  com- 
missioners and  the  two  Democratic  members.  The  action 
of  the  Democratic  members,  under  the  prod  of  Tammany 
Hall,  had  served  to  vitiate  the  Republicans'  endeavors  to 
prevent  fraudulent  registration.1 

"  Choose  ye  this  day  whom  ye  will  serve,"  cried  the 
Times  on  election  morning.  It  summed  up  its  final  argu- 
ments as  follows : 

John  A.  Griswold  and  John  T.  Hoffman  entered  public  life 
together  as  Democrats ;  but  the  former  now  represents  Democ- 
racy as  it  was,  and  the  latter  Democracy  as  it  is.  It  is  the 
difference  between  the  genuine  and  the  sham,  between  honesty 
and  corruption,  between  purity  and  Tammany.  ...  If  any 
peace-loving,  fraud-hating  citizen  who  claims  to  keep  his  neck 
out  of  the  yoke  of  party  allegiance,  has  had  doubts  hitherto 
how  he  ought  to  vote,  surely  Mayor  Hoffman's  proclamation 
ought  to  dispel  them.8 

1  For  full  account  see  New  York  Times,  Nov.  3,  1868. 
'Ibid. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

Tweed  Carries  the  State  by  Fraud 

The  election  over,  final  results  showed  that  Grant  had 
obtained  214  electoral  votes  in  twenty-six  States  to  80  in 
eight  States  for  Seymour.  The  disparity  in  popular  votes 
was  not  so  great;  Grant  received  3,012,833  or  52.71  per 
cent  of  the  total  vote,  while  Seymour  was  credited  with 
2,703,249  or  47.29  per  cent.  The  Republican  majority  was 
309,584  or  5.42  per  cent  of  the  total  vote.1  In  New  York 
State  the  Democrats  profited  from  the  untiring  efforts  of 
the  "  Ring  ".  Grant  obtained  419,883  votes,  a  percentage 
of  49.45,  while  Seymour  received  429,883,  a  percentage 
of  50.55.  For  Governor,  Griswold  received  411,355,  or 
49.40  per  cent  of  the  total  vote,  and  Hoffman  received  439,- 
301,  or  51.60  per  cent.2    In  spite  of  the  fact  that  Seymour 

1  Tribune  Almanac,  1869,  p.  88. 

In  1864  Lincoln  received 2,223,035  votes,  or  55.10  per  cent 

McCIellan  received  ...   1,811,754      "        "    44.90    "      " 
Republican  majority...      411,281       "        "     10.20    "      " 

In  i860  Lincoln  received 1,866,452      "        "    39.87    "      " 

Douglas    received 1,375,157      "        "    29-37    "      " 

Breckinridge  received.      847,953      "        w     18.11 

Bell  received    590,631      "        "    12.65    "      " 

1  Ibid.,  p.  57.    The  vote  on  the  other  State  officers  was : 
Lieutenant    Governor — Alonzo    B.    Cornell    (Republican),    411,670; 
Allen  C.  Beach   (Democrat),  439,327;  majority,  27,657. 

Canal    Commissioner  —  Alexander    Barkley    (Republican),   411,522; 
Oliver  Bascom  (Democrat),  439,126;  majority,  27,604. 

State  Prison  Inspector — Henry  A.  Barnum    (Republican),  411,850; 
David  B.  McNeil   (Democrat),  438,784;  majority,  26,934. 

Clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals— Campbell  H.  Young  (Republican), 
412,080;  Edward  O.  Perrin  (Democrat),  438,357;  majority,  26,277. 
392  [392 


393]  TWEED  CARRIES  THE  STATE  BY  FRAUD  393 

carried  the  State  by  10,000  and  Hoffman  by  27,946,  the 
Republicans  won  a  majority  in  both  branches  of  the  legis- 
lature and  elected  eighteen  of  the  thirty-one  Congressmen. 
It  would  be  difficult  in  view  of  admitted  facts  not  to  be- 
lieve that  gross  frauds  were  committed  by  Tweed  and  his 
satellites.  On  Tuesday  morning  a  secret  circular *  from  the 
Democratic  central  committee  was  sent  to  trusted  Demo- 
crats throughout  the  State,  with  but  one  object  as  the  Even- 
ing Post  declared,  to  enable  William  M.  Tweed  to  estimate 
how  many  votes  would  be  needed  in  New  York  City  to  de- 
feat the  will  of  the  people  of  the  State.  Samuel  J.  Tilden's 
name  was  signed  to  this  circular.2  The  Evening  Post  could 
do  naught  but  believe  that  the  signature  was  a  forgery, 
which  prediction  was  substantiated  by  Tilden's  repudiation 
of  the  circular  on  the  following  day  in  the  columns  of  the 
Evening  Post.9    Yet  Tilden  could  not  believe  that  the  cir- 

1  New  York  Evening  Post,  Nov.  4,  1868. 
The  circular  read: 

"  Private  and   Strictly  Confidential " 
"  Rooms  of  the  Democratic  State  Committee 

October  27,  1868. 
"  My  dear  Sir :  Please  at  once  to  communicate  with  some  reliable 
person  in  three  or  four  principal  towns,  and  in  each  city  of  your 
county,  and  request  him  (expense  duly  arranged  for  this  end)  to 
telegraph  to  William  M.  Tweed,  Tammany  Hall,  at  the  minute  of 
closing  the  polls — not  waiting  for  a  count — such  person's  estimate 
of  the  vote.  Let  the  telegraph  be  as  follows — '  This  town  will  give  a 
Republican  (or  Democratic)  majority  of — .'  There  is  of  course  an 
important  object  to  be  attained.  By  a  simultaneous  transmission  up 
to  the  hour  of  closing  the  poll,  but  not  longer  waiting,  opportunity 
can  be  taken  of  the  usual  half-hour  lull  in  telegraphic  communication 
over  lines  before  actual  results  begin  to  be  declared,  and  before  the 
Associated  Press  absorb  the  telegraph  with  returns  and  interfere  with 
individual  messages,  and  give  orders  to  watch  carefully  the  count." 

"Very  truly  yours, 

"Samuel  J.  Tilden,  Chairman." 

a  New  Yorfc  Evening  Post,  Nove.  4,  1868. 

■  Ibid. 


394        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [394 

cular  had  any  such  illegal  motive  as  had  been  ascribed  to  it. 
His  own  charity,  however,  could  not  cover  the  multitude  of 
sins  of  his  fellow  committeemen. 

The  Union  League  Club  after  the  election  charged  that 
gigantic  frauds  had  been  practised  in  naturalization,  fraud- 
ulent registration  and  voting.  Andrew  D.  White  and 
Roscoe  Conkling  spoke  of  the  frauds  as  well-known  facts.1 
The  Tribune  demonstrated  how  in  a  single  ward  votes  were 
cast  on  more  than  2,000  fictitious  names.2  The  Sun  3  joined 
with  the  Tribune,  the  Evening  Post,  the  Commercial  Ad- 
vertiser and  the  Times  in  demanding  an  adequate  explana- 
tion of  the  confidential  circular  and  a  searching  investiga- 
tion of  the  frauds.  The  Sun  also  published  charts  which 
manifestly  proved  the  frauds  practised  by  Tammany.  In 
New  York  City  and  Brooklyn  it  was  a  notorious  fact  that 
the  ballots  were  counted  behind  closed  doors  in  open  de- 
fiance of  the  law.  "  False  names  in  thousands  were  put 
on  the  registration  lists,  and  on  the  strength  of  them  re- 
peaters went  from  precinct  to  precinct  voting  early  and 
often.,,  4 

"  The  monstrous  frauds,"  said  the  Nation,  "  are  per- 
fectly notorious.  Their  magnitude  is  such  as  to  make  it 
difficult  to  believe  in  their  existence,  and  almost  impossible 
to  overcome  their  effect.  Their  existence  is  not  seriously 
disputed."  6  The  Nation  claimed  that  in  New  York  City  a 
total  of  50,000  persons  had  been  naturalized,  20,000  to 
25,000  of  whom  had  never  gone  near  the  courts,  and  10,000 

1  Cf.  Alexander,  A  Political  History  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
vol.  iii,  pp.  215-16.  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  23,  1868.  Thomas  V. 
Cooper,  American  Politics,  vol.  iii,  p.  180. 

"  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  6,  1868. 

*  New  York  Sun,  Nov.  4,  5,  6,  1868. 

*  The  Nation,  Nov.  5,  1868. 
1  Ibid.,  Nov.  12,  1868. 


395]  TWEED  CARRIES  THE  STATE  BY  FRAUD  395 

to  15,000  had  never  been  sworn.1  It  also  claimed  that 
20,000  fictitious  names  had  been  registered  in  the  cities  of 
New  York  and  Brooklyn.2 

A  Congressional  investigation  into  the  New  York  elec- 
tion frauds  was  set  on  foot  in  pursuance  of  a  memorial 
presented  in  the  senate  and  the  house  of  representatives 
on  December  14,  1868,  by  a  committee  representing  the 
Union  League  Club  of  New  York  City.3  Although  the 
committee  experienced  great  difficulties  in  obtaining  rec- 
ords, and  arrests  were  necessary  in  many  cases  in  order  to 

1  The  Nation,  Nov.  12,  1868.  Cf.  New  York  City— Government 
Corruption, — a  series  of  19  pamphlets  paying  special  attention  to  the 
Tweed  Ring.     In  Columbia  University  Library. 

1  The  Nation,  Oct.  29,  1868.  "  The  naturalization  mill  has  finished 
its  work  for  this  election,  having  ground  out  35,000  in  this  city  alone. 
Of  these,  10,000  are  perhaps  rightly  admitted.  10,000  have  passed 
through  the  machine  without  having  been  here  five  years;  and  the 
other  15,000  have  never,  at  any  rate,  been  near  the  court-room;  indeed, 
from  5,000  to  7,000  of  these  latter  are  non-existent.  This  is  what  one 
of  our  upright  judges — he  was  upright  at  one  moment — did  one  day 
last  week.  He  invited  a  friend  who  happened  to  be  in  his  court- 
room to  sit  by  him  while  he  played  a  little  joke.  Then  he  left  calling 
off  the  names  from  the  list  before  him  and  proceeded  to  call  off  a  long 
string  of  purely  imaginary  names  invented  by  himself  on  the  spur  of 
the  moment :  '  John  Smith,  James  Snooks,  John  Jones,  Thomas 
Noakes,'  and  the  like.  For  every  name  a  man  instantly  answered,  and 
took  a  certificate.  Finally,  seeing  a  person  on  the  other  side  of  the 
room  scratching  his  head,  the  judge  called  out,  'George  Scratchem.' 
'  Here,'  responded  a  voice.  '  Take  that  man  outside  to  scratch,'  said 
his  honor  to  the  usher;  and  resumed  the  more  regular  manufacture 

of  voters At  least  10,000  certificates  of  naturalization  have  been 

issued  for  the  use  of  '  repeaters,'  and  scattered  through  the  State. 
The  total  number  of  certificates  fraudulently  obtained,  in  this  and 
other  cities,  is  at  least  25,000  to  30,000.  This  is  a  heavy  load  for 
Grant  to  carry  in  this  State;  and  may  be  too  much  for  him." 

For  a  detailed  account  of  the  election  frauds  of  1868  in  New  York 
City  see  John  I.  Davenport,  The  election  and  naturalisation  frauds 
in  New  York  City,  1860-70,  p.  107  et  seq. 

3  See  Senate  Misc.  Doc,  no.  4,  3d.  Sess.,  40th  Cong. 


396        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [396 

obtain  testimony,  many  witnesses  of  high  and  low  degree 
were  questioned.  The  committee's  report,  embodied  in 
two  volumes,1  is  illuminating  as  to  the  political  methods 
in  vogue  under  the  Tweed  ring. 

Mr.  William  Lawrence,  of  Ohio,  offered  the  majority  re- 
port on  February  23rd.  The  majority  found :  1.  That  many 
thousands  of  aliens  had  fraudulently  procured,  or  were  fur- 
nished with,  certificates  of  naturalization  which  had  been 
illegally  or  fraudulently  issued  in  order  that  they  might 
register  and  vote  at  the  election ;  2.  That  thousands  of  cer- 
tificates of  naturalization  were  granted  in  the  names  of  fic- 
titious persons  to  enable  persons  to  vote  many  times  at  the 
election;  3.  That  many  hundreds  voted  from  two  to  forty 
times  or  more ;  4.  That  extensive  frauds  were  committed  in 
canvassing  the  ballots,  and  that  the  names  of  Democratic 
voters  were  entered  on  the  poll  lists  and  counted  as  if  such 
persons  had  actually  voted,  when  they  had  not;  5.  That  the 
accomplishment  of  these  frauds  involved  gross  neglect  of 
duty  and  disregard  for  the  law  so  great  as  "  to  evince  that  a 
criminal  purpose  prevailed  in  some  of  the  courts,  while 
officers  and  Democratic  partisans  of  almost  every  grade, 
either  by  official  influence,  or  otherwise,  aided,  sanctioned, 
or  knew  of  and  failed  to  prevent  them."  The  same  influ- 
ences shielded  the  perpetrators  in  most  cases  from  detection 
or  arrest,  and  when  arrested  they  have  escaped  all  punish- 
ment through  the  agency  of  judicial  officers;  6.  That 
through  these  agencies  the  Democratic  electors  of  the  Presi- 
dent and  Vice-President  and  the  Democratic  candidate  for 
Governor  of  New  York  were  fraudulently  elected.2 

1  Reports  of  Committees  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  3rd  Sess., 
40th  Con.,  vol.  ii,  no.  31,  vol.  i,  p.  148;  vol.  iii,  no.  41,  pp.  149-867, 
1868-69. 

2  Reports  of  Committees,  3rd  Sess.,  40th  Cong.,  1868-69,  vol.  ii,  no.  31, 
pp.  1-97. 


397]  TWEED  CARRIES  THE  STATE  BY  FRAUD  397 

The  majority  found  that  from  1856  to  1867  the  Superior 
Court  and  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  x  had  naturalized 
an  average  of  9,000  persons  annually.  The  Supreme  Court 
did  not  enter  into  the  field  of  competition  until  October  6, 
1868.  The  results  for  1868  were  found  to  be  as  follows : 
the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  naturalized  3,145,  the  Superior 
Court,  27,897,  and  the  Supreme  Court,  io,070.2 

As  indicative  of  criminal  intent  in  high  judicial  places 
the  majority  found  that  the  clerks  3  of  the  Supreme  and  the 
Superior  Courts  had  ordered  from  the  New  York  Printing 
Company  between  September  16  and  October  23rd,  105,000 
blank  applications  and  69,000  certificates.4  In  view  of  the 
probably  well-known,  certainly  easily  ascertainable  fact, 
that  the  average  annual  naturalization  called  for  less  than 
10,000  certificates,  it  appears  strange  to  find  69,000  or- 
dered. Further  the  refusal  of  Justice  Barnard  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  to  sign  an  order  which  would  enable  the  com- 
mittee to  investigate  its  records  casts  grave  doubts  on  its 
honesty.5  Out  of  39,000  blank  certificates  printed  for  the 
Supreme  Court,  27,068  were  unaccounted  for  on  February 
17,  1869.* 

It  appears  from  the  testimony  that  Justice  John  R.  Brady 
of  the  Supreme  Court  claimed  that  five  minutes  was  neces- 
sary in  order  to  properly  examine  an  applicant.  Judge 
Charles  P.  Daly,  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  likewise 

1  The  Report  spoke  of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  as  an  honest 
court.     Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  no.  31,  p.  22. 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  10-12. 

*  For  a  complete  list  of  the  various  city  officials  in  1870  see  Town- 
send,  New  York  in  Bondage,  pp.  41-45. 

4  Reports,  vol.  ii,  no.  31,  pp.  12-13. 

5  Realizing  the  futility  of  such  a  move  the  Committee  did  not  call 
Justice  Barnard  to  testify,  and  he  did  not  volunteer,  in  spite  of  the 
open  charges  against  him.     Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  26. 

0  Reports,  vol.  ii,  no.  31,  p.  28.     See  The  Nation,  March  4,  1869. 


398        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [398 

claimed  that  it  took  from  three  to  five  minutes.  But  Judge 
John  McCunn,  of  the  Superior  Court,  stated  that  he  could 
examine  an  applicant  in  thirty  seconds.  Judge  McCunn  also 
stated  that  he  had  frequently  held  court  at  eleven  to  twelve 
o'clock  at  night  in  order  to  oblige  those  aliens  who  were  so 
anxious  to  become  American  citizens. 

The  number  of  those  naturalized  for  several  days  in  the 
Supreme  Court,  where  Justices  George  G.  Barnard  and 
Albert  Cardozo  sat,  follows:  2,109,  1,868,  1,856,  and  1,842. 
Colonel  Archibald  M.  Bliss  testified  that  he  had  witnessed 
batches  of  150  to  200  foreigners  brought  before  the  bar  of 
Justice  Barnard's  court  and  sworn  in  with  no  attempt  made 
to  identify  them.  A  Bible  was  held  up  in  the  middle  of  a 
group  by  an  attendant  and  only  those  nearby  could  touch  it. 
This  process  was  rapidly  repeated  many  times  while  Col- 
onel Bliss  was  there.  At  length  an  order  was  given  to 
clear  the  room,  Barnard  having  become  aware  of  Bliss's 
presence.1  Regarding  Judge  McCunn's  court,  testimony 
was  given  to  show  that  the  applicants  were  not  permitted  to 
enter  the  court  room.  Gangs  of  witnesses  alone  were  per- 
mitted to  enter,  who  swore  to  the  identity  of  the  applicants 
outside;  the  latter  were  thereupon  given  their  certificates 
upon  payment  of  the  fee  demanded  by  Tammany. 

The  management  of  these  huge  frauds  was  in  the  hands 
of  a  naturalization  committee  appointed  by  Tammany,  the 
chairman  of  which  was  Judge  Moses  D.  Gale,  whose  up- 
rightness and  purity  of  character  the  minority  report  com- 
mended. This  committee  had  its  main  office  at  the  corner 
of  Centre  Street  and  Try  on  Row,  with  branch  offices 
throughout  the  city.  A  subcommittee  to  handle  the  Ger- 
man naturalization  was  presided  over  by  one  Benjamin  B. 
Rosenberg,2  with  an  office  at  6  Centre  Street.    This  latter 

1  Reports,  vol.  iii,  no.  41,  pp.  119-120;  vol.  ii,  no.  31,  p.  24. 

1  Afterwards  indicted  for  fraud  in  connection  with  naturalization. 


399]  TWEED  CARRIES  THE  STATE  BY  FRAUD  399 

office  appears  from  the  testimony  to  have  been  the  most 
active  in  procuring  from  the  Supreme  Court,  selling  and 
distributing  certificates,  and  "  red  tickets "  prepared  by 
Tammany  to  pay  the  clerk  fees.1 

Additional  evidence  was  advanced  by  the  majority  to 
show  how  the  gangs  of  repeaters  were  able  to  cast  numer- 
ous ballots.  To  bring  this  about  proved  easy  for  Sheriff 
James  O'Brien,  who  appointed  2,000  toughs  as  special 
deputies  on  election  day.2  Wherever  it  was  attempted  to 
stop  ballot-box  stuffing,  or  a  repeater  was  challenged,  the 
daring  Republican  watcher  was  promptly  subjected  to  the 
arts  of  the  Bowery  tough.8  In  cases  where  arrests  were 
made  the  party  under  arrest  was  taken  before  one  of  the 
courts  subsidized  by  Tweed,  practical  immunity  from  pun- 
ishment being  the  result.4 

One  gathers  an  entirely  different  impression  when  con- 
sidering the  minority  report  of  the  Congressional  committee.5 
But  two  members  of  the  committee  concurred  in  this  report, 
namely,  Mr.  M.  C.  Kerr  and  Mr.  L.  W.  Ross,  who  spoke 
of  the  facts  of  the  majority  report  as  a  stock  of  "  stale  slan- 
ders "  gleaned  from  witnesses  who  were  liars,  swindlers 
and  altogether  beneath  contempt.  The  minority  report  at- 
tempted to  cast  doubt  on  the  veracity  of  all  the  majority's 
witnesses  through  having  impeached  certain  of  them, 
doubtless  with  witnesses  also  impeachable.  The  testimony 
of  Mayor  A.  Oakey  Hall  •  and  of  Tweed  himself  7  was  en- 

1  Reports,  vol.  ii,  no.  31,  p.  15;  also  vol.  iii,  no.  41,  question  no   33; 
PP.  29,  609,  685,  2062,  2453,  3477,  3409,  3006,  3422,  3004,  3547- 

2  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  no.  31,  p.  55. 

3  Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  47,  49,  50.     Cf.  Evidence,  pp.  362,  8,  86. 

4  Reports,  no.  31,  p.  57- 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  99-148. 

•  Ibid.,  no.  41,  p.  335- 
7  Ibid.,  p.  266. 


400        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [400 

larged  upon  as  proof  that  only  minor  irregularities  had  oc- 
curred in  the  election.  The  minority  admitted  that  certain 
frauds  had  occurred  but  asserted  that  the  fraudulent  vote 
in  the  election  of  1868  did  not  exceed  1,500  to  2,000  and  of 
that  number  there  were  as  many  Republicans  as  Democrats 
concerned. 

The  minority  report  was  Hobbesian  in  the  extreme :  "the 
very  constitution  of  man  inclines  him,"  it  said,  "  be  he  Re- 
publican or  Democrat,  to  villainous  devices  of  all  kinds  to 
advance  his  selfish  interests."  It  then  attempted  to  show 
that  the  majority  had  used  figures  unfairly  x  and  that  the 
Republicans  were  directly  responsible  for  having  produced 
any  congestion  in  the  naturalization  courts,  through  having 
passed  a  law  in  1865  which  required  every  naturalized  per- 
son to  show  a  certificate  before  he  could  register  and  vote. 
Moreover,  the  minority  explained  the  increased  naturaliza- 
tion on  the  grounds  of  increased  population  and  had  a  plaus- 
ible answer  for  the  greater  output  in  naturalizations  by  the 
Supreme  and  Superior  Courts  than  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  by  pointing  out  that  the  former  courts  had  a  greater 
number  of  judges  than  the  latter.  Chief  emphasis  was 
placed  by  the  minority  on  the  following  statement :  "  We 
invite  especial  attention  to  the  important  fact  which  we  de- 
sire to  emphasize,  that  it  is  not,  in  our  entire  record,  satis- 
factorily shown  by  credible  or  unimpeached  testimony,  that 
any  one  or  more  clerks,  judges,  or  other  officers  of  any  of 
the  courts  was,  with  knowledge,  directly  or  indirectly  a 
party  to  or  participant  in  a  single  one  of  these  frauds."  2 

Regarding  the  election  frauds  in  New  York  City  the 
Commercial  Advertiser  was  inclined  to  blame  the  Repub- 
licans for  lack  of  the  proper  organization  to  prevent  fraud.3 

1  Report,  no.  31,  p.  124.  *  Ibid.,  p.  114. 

"  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Nov.  4,  1868.  Cf.  P.  B.  Sweeny, 
On  the  ring  frauds  and  other  public  questions;  taken  from  his  inter- 
views and  other  papers  (New  York,  1894),  passim. 


4Oi]  TWEED  CARRIES  THE  STATE  BY  FRAUD  40l 

It  stated  that  in  many  of  the  Democratic  strongholds  no 
challengers  were  provided  nor  were  lists  checked  off.  It 
was  severe  on  Republican  inspectors  of  elections  and  poll 
clerks  many  of  whom,  it  claimed,  must  have  connived  with 
the  Democrats  in  fraud,  or  have  been  woefully  stupid  or 
timid.1  Moreover,  it  poked  fun  at  the  Union  Republican 
central  committee,  which  drew  up  windy  resolutions,  and 
gave  the  committee  credit  for  a  large  share  of  the  defeat  of 
the  people  by  ballot-box  stuffing  because  it  failed  to  pro- 
vide proper  election  machinery.2 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Sun*  the  Evening  Post]4  the 
Times 5  and  the  Tribune,9  were  loud  in  their  denunciations, 
demanding  a  thorough  investigation  and  punishment  for 
those  convicted.  From  a  perusal  of  the  World  immediately 
after  election  one  would  never  suspect  that  there  had  been 
aught  irregular  in  the  vote.  Later  it  denied  in  toto  any 
ballot-box  stuffing  on  the  part  of  the  Democrats  and  laughed 
at  the  absurdity  of  the  Radicals  having  a  majority  in  New 
York  City.7 

The  editorial  opinion  as  to  the  results  of  the  election 
varied.  The  Times  predicted  that  the  Reconstruction  meas- 
ures would  now  have  a  fair  trial.  It  believed  that  the 
Democrats  of  the  State  had  cared  comparatively  little  for 
the  Presidency  which  they  had  despaired  of  winning  after 
the  October  elections,  but  that  they  were  abundantly  con- 
soled over  the  defeat  of  Seymour  by  the  election  of  Hoff- 
man.     Tammany    had   played    its    game   with    successful 

1  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Nov.  4,  1868. 
1  Ibid.,  Nov.  5,  1863. 

•  New  York  Sun,  Nov.  4-10,  1868. 

*  New  York  Evening  Post,  Nov.  3-8,  1868. 

*  New  York  Times,  Nov.  3-12,  1868. 

•  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  3-10,  1868. 
1  New  York  World,  Nov.  5,  1868. 


402        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [402 

adroitness  in  dictating  the  national  platform  and  candi- 
dates, thus  destroying  all  chances  of  a  national  success,  and 
bending  all  of  its  energies  to  the  election  of  Hoffman.1 

The  Evening  Post  saw  in  Grant's  election  the  determin- 
ation of  the  American  people  that  Congress  must  not  be 
coerced.2  "  The  bare  success  of  a  candidate,"  thought  the 
Sun, 

whose  platform  and  policy  are  embodied  in  the  phrase,  '  Let 
us  have  peace,'  will  cause  the  waves  of  passion  and  violence 
in  the  Southern  States  to  sink  in  repose.  ...  As  to  recon- 
struction, the  triumph  of  Grant  and  the  defeat  of  Seymour,  in 
a  manner  so  signal  and  conclusive,  will  of  themselves  solve 
the  problem.3 

Next  to  turning  his  editorial  batteries  against  the  frauds 
perpetrated  on  election  day  in  New  York  City,  Horace 
Greeley  found  huge  delight  in  condoling  with  Horatio  Sey- 
mour over  his  defeat.  It  may  be  that  Greeley's  tender  min- 
istrations to  Seymour  loomed  larger  to  him  than  did  his 
concern  over  the  debauchery  of  the  suffrage.  Nationally 
Greeley  saw  in  the  election  of  Grant  the  settlement  of  the 
questions  of  "Union,  Peace  and  Equal  Rights  for  all  men".4 

Thurlow  Weed  found  that  the  campaign  had  been  apa- 
thetic considering  the  tremendous  issues  at  stake,  the  char- 
acter of  the  opposing  leaders  and  the  unsettled  condition  of 
the  country;  when  contrasted  with  previous  presidential 
contests.5  Weed  conceived  two  reasons  for  this,  namely, 
that  the  course  of  Tammany  in  their  national  convention 
together  with  the  platform  and  candidates  put  forth  de- 

1  New  York  Times,  Nov.  5,  1868. 

*  New  York  Evening  Post,  Nov.  4,  1868. 

8  New  York  Sun,  Nov.  4,  1868. 

*New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  6,  1868. 

6  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Nov.  3,  1868. 


403]  TWEED  CARRIES  THE  STATE  BY  FRAUD  403 

f eated  the  Democrats  nationally  from  the  start ;  and  second, 
that  the  prolonged  excitement  through  which  the  country 
had  gone  at  the  beginning  of  the  campaign  had  reacted 
against  the  Democrats.1  That  Grant  would  furnish  a  care- 
ful administration  and  would  rehabilitate  the  Southern 
States  with  their  rights  in  the  Union,  was  the  conviction  of 
Weed.2 

Still  clinging  to  its  old  love,  Chief  Justice  Chase,  the 
Herald  in  commenting  on  the  election  expressed  its  belief 
that  Chase  might  have  won  over  Grant  had  he  been  nomi- 
nated.3 The  suggestion  of  Chase's  name  was  considered 
by  the  World  to  have  been  in  every  way  unfortunate  for 
the  candidacy  of  Seymour,  in  preventing  the  practical  views 
of  Seymour  from  receiving  a  fair  hearing  before  the  coun- 
try in  the  early  summer.4 

The  World  especially  praised  Seymour  for  pitching  the 
canvass  in  a  moderate  key,  but  it  credited  him  with  an 
error  in  so  long  and  so  persistently  refusing  to  permit  the 
use  of  his  name  as  a  candidate.  It  congratulated  the  Demo- 
crats of  the  United  States  upon  the  battle  they  had  fought 
in  behalf  of  "  Representative  Self -Government,  Liberty 
and  Economy,  the  Union  and  its  Peace.,,  "  With  all  our 
hearts  we  applaud  and  honor  them  for  the  manful  and  un- 
wearied blows  they  have  dealt  at  disunion,  revolution,  mili- 
tary despotism,  corruption  and  fraud."5  In  giving  Sey- 
mour its  cordial  good  wishes  as  he  re-entered  private  life, 
the  World  claimed  that  the  Democratic  party  would  be 
forced  to  acknowledge  him  as  the  wisest  and  most  sagacious 
of  all  Democratic  leaders  when  sufficient  time  had  elapsed.6 

1  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser,  Nov.  3,  1868. 

1  Ibid.,  Nov.  4,  1868. 

8  New  York  Herald,  Nov.  5,  1868. 

4  New  York  World,  Nov.  5,  1868. 

8  Ibid.,  Nov.  4,  1868.  •  Ibid.,  Nov.  5,  1868. 


404        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [404 

May  we  leave  the  question,  has  time  borne  out  the  World's 
prediction  ? 

THE  NEW  YORK  CITY  CHARTER  ELECTION  OF   1 868 

On  Tuesday,  December  2,  1868,  the  election  for  charter 
officers  of  New  York  City  was  held.  The  election  passed 
off  quietly  and  created  little  interest.  Republicans  were 
nominated  for  all  the  offices,  but  having  exercised  them- 
selves thus  far,  apparently,  the  Republicans  and  enemies  of 
Tammany  considered  it  useless  to  exert  themselves  further. 
As  the  vote  shows  most  of  them  remained  away  from  the 
polls. 

The  candidate  for  mayor  was  to  be  elected  for  one  year 
only  to  fill  out  the  unexpired  term  of  Hoffman.  On 
Monday,  November  23rd,  Tammany  nominated  A.  Oakey 
Hall,  who  was  then  representing  it  as  district  attorney. 
Hall  was  one  of  Tweed's  bright  young  men,  being  advanced 
to  the  mayoralty  so  that  he  could  act  as  a  polished,  genteel 
headpiece  for  the  "  Ring ".  Four  years  later  upon  the 
overthrow  of  Tweed,  Hall  was  forced  to  flee  to  Europe. 

The  Republicans  nominated  Colonel  Frederick  A.  Conk- 
ling,1  formerly  a  prominent  merchant,  an  ex-member  of  the 
Assembly  and  of  Congress,  who  accepted  the  nomination  in 
face  of  inevitable  defeat.  Neither  the  Democratic  Union 
party  nor  the  Mozart  Hall  faction  of  the  Democrats  was 
able  to  find  a  candidate  to  run  against  Tammany.  At 
length,  on  November  27th,  after  the  Hon.  Andrew  H. 
Green  and  the  Hon.  John  Kelly  2  had  declined,  Conkling 
received  the  nominations  of  the  Constitutional  Union 
Democracy  and  of  the  Democratic  Union  party.8 

1  Colonel  Conkling  had  served  in  the  Civil  War  at  the  head  of  the 
84th  Regiment  of  National  Guards. 

2  The  Democratic  Union  party  had  made  a  strong  pre-convention 
fight  to  nominate  John  Kelly  for  Mayor  on  the  Tammany  ticket.  On 
its  failure  Kelly  withdrew. 

9  New  York  Sun,  Nov.  28,  1868. 


405]         TWEED  CARRIES  THE  STATE  BY  FRAUD  405 

For  corporation  counsel  Tammany  renominated  Richard 
O'Gorman.  Mozart  failed  to  agree  to  O'Gorman's  renomi- 
nation  because,  as  it  appears,  O'Gorman  was  not  willing  to 
give  Fernando  Wood  a  rental  of  $18,000  for  some  rooms 
on  Nassau  Street.1  The  Republicans  experienced  difficulty 
in  rinding  a  person  who  would  accept  the  barren  honor  of  a 
nomination  for  corporation  counsel.  Nevertheless,  on  No- 
vember 27th,  Dorman  B.  Eaton  was  persuaded  to  accept. 
Aldermen,  assistant  aldermen,  school  commissioners  and 
school  trustees  were  among  the  other  officers  to  be  voted 
for.  Practically  no  campaigning  was  done  by  either  side, 
ward  conflicts  stirring  up  what  little  interest  was  displayed. 

For  Mayor,  A.  Oakey  Hall  received  a  total  of  75,109 
votes  to  20,835  cast  for  Frederick  A.  Conkling.2  Richard 
O'Gorman  was  elected  over  Dorman  B.  Eaton  by  a  ma- 
jority of  53,915  votes.8  Between  the  November  and  De- 
cember elections  the  Republican  vote  in  New  York  City 
fell  off  22,537  or  nearly  52  per  cent  of  the  vote  for  Gov- 
ernor, while  the  Democratic  vote  fell  off  37,413  or  32.26 
per  cent.4 

The  Sun  was  the  only  leading  paper  which  ran  editorials 
on  the  charter  election.  Though  beaten,  it  maintained  that 
neither  the  Republican  party  nor  its  candidates  had  any- 
thing to  regret  in  connection  with  the  contest.5  The  Herald 
made  but  a  perfunctory  plea  for  good  government  and  ex- 
hibited no  surprise  at  the  election  results.  The  Times,  al- 
though it  considered  Hall  a  genial  gentleman,  a  man  of 
reading  and  of  culture,  personally  honest  and  always  dis- 
posed to  do  what  the  public  welfare  might  require,  stated 

1  New  York  Sun,  Nov.  24,  1868. 

2  Tribune  Almanac,  1869,  p.  62. 

8  O'Gorman  received  74,704,  Eaton,  20,789. 
4  Tribune  Almanac,  op.  cit. 
*  New  York  Sun,  Dec.  2,  1868. 


4o6        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [4q6 

that  he  would  have  as  little  to  say  in  the  management  of  the 
City  as  the  first  man  he  would  meet  on  Broadway.1  The 
Times  prediction  proved  only  too  true. 

1  New  York  Times,  Dec.  2,  1868. 


CHAPTER  XV 
Conclusion 

During  the  period  from  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  to 
1869,  when  the  Democrats  gained  control  of  the  State  ad- 
ministration, the  national  administration  at  Washington 
was  forced  to  give  New  York,  among  the  Northern  States, 
its  chief  attention.  Instead  of  the  Empire  State,  with  its 
great  wealth  and  resources,  giving  potent  aid  to  the  na- 
tional administration  in  attempting  a  speedy  settlement  of 
the  Reconstruction  problems,  the  State  was  divided  into 
two  hostile  camps  over  the  question  of  the  President's 
policy.  New  York,  indeed,  from  1865  to  1869  was  in  the 
process  of  a  political  reconstruction,  which  corresponds 
with  and  bears  relationship  to  the  wider  early  Reconstruc- 
tion period  in  the  South. 

The  closeness  of  this  relationship  may  be  suggested. 
New  York,  on  the  one  hand,  was  the  home  of  one  of  the 
most  bitter  and  active  groups  hostile  to  President  Johnson's 
Reconstruction  policy,  namely,  Horace  Greeley,  Reuben  E. 
Fenton  and  Roscoe  Conkling.  Likewise,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  was  the  home  of  the  President's  strongest  group  of  sup- 
porters, the  New  York  triumvirate,  composed  of  William 
H.  Seward,  Thurlow  Weed  and  Henry  J.  Raymond. 
Johnson  relied  upon  the  support  of  Raymond  in  Congress 
to  defend  the  Presidential  policy,  and  upon  Seward  and 
Weed  to  hold  the  balance  in  New  York  State  against  the 
Radicals. 

In  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  August,  1866,  we  find 
the  most  important  expression  of  political  transformation 
407]  407 


4o8        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [4o8 

which  made  the  period  from  1865  to  1869  distinctive  in 
political  annals.  The  Philadelphia  principle  was  to  a  de- 
gree foreshadowed  by  the  change  of  policy  which  the 
Democrats  of  New  York  developed  in  1865.  The  meta- 
morphosis was  complete.  With  one  stroke  of  the  pen  the 
Democrats  freed  themselves  from  the  War  issues  and  be- 
came firm  supporters  of  the  President's  policy.  With  one 
stroke  of  the  guillotine  they  rid  the  party  of  the  men  re- 
sponsible for  the  party's  defeat.  The  Democrats,  as  firm 
disciples  of  President  Johnson's  policy,  were  thus  prepared 
to  coalesce  with  the  Philadelphia  movement  in  1866. 

It  has  been  shown  how  Johnson's  attempt  to  patch  his 
political  fences  by  a  union  of  Democrats  and  Conservative 
Republicans  failed  to  win  for  him  the  necessary  support  in 
Congress  to  carry  out  his  policy.  However,  in  New  York 
the  Philadelphia  principle  had  its  most  fruitful  results.  The 
Albany  convention  in  1866  was  the  New  York  expression 
of  the  Philadelphia  principle.  However,  the  New  York 
Democrats,  who  had  emerged  from  the  War  with  at  least 
as  much  strength  as  when  they  entered,  due  largely  to  the 
Seymour  administration  and  the  draft  riots,  were  merely 
trimming  their  sails  for  the  breeze.  The  Democratic 
transformation  was  of  the  tongue,  rather  than  the  heart. 
Hoffman,  the  Tammany  candidate,  who  was  nominated  by 
a  ruse  over  General  John  A.  Dix,  the  logical  candidate  of 
the  Philadelphia  principle,  represented  neither  the  princi- 
ples nor  the  purposes  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention. 

To  many  the  question  presented  in  this  period  was, 
whether  the  State  would  be  safer  in  the  hands  of  the  Con- 
servative Republicans  and  Democrats  of  the  Dix  type,  than 
under  Fenton  and  the  Radicals.  The  Democratic  leaders 
of  the  State  appeared  to  be  thoroughly  alarmed  over  the 
distance  to  which  the  Philadelphia  movement  was  carrying 
them.     In  their  convention  of  1866,  and  in  the  campaign, 


409]  CONCLUSION  409 

the  Democratic  leaders  made  it  apparent  that  they  had  en- 
dorsed the  Philadelphia  movement  to  get  into  power — not 
to  give  Dix  and  the  Conservatives  of  the  Republican  or 
Democratic  parties  the  control  of  the  State.  Nevertheless, 
it  must  be  said  that  the  New  York  Democrats  appeared  to 
have  been  sincere  in  their  endorsement  of  the  President's 
policy. 

Moreover,  the  Philadelphia  principle  was  doubly  a  fail- 
ure in  that  its  leading  backers  lost  caste  with  the  Republican 
party.  Raymond  failed  to  lead  the  President's  policy  to 
victory  in  the  House,  and  as  a  result  of  his  Philadelphia 
speech  was  read  out  of  the  Republican  party,  although,  at 
this  day  when  the  Reconstruction  passions  are  largely  al- 
layed it  is  difficult  to  find  the  objectionable  features  in  his 
address.  Seward,  as  the  originator,  in  part,  of  Johnson's 
policy  and  as  the  defender  of  the  constitutionality  of  the 
President's  vetoes,  came  in  for  his  share  of  unpopularity. 
Seward's  friends,  at  first,  thought  that  he  remained  in  the 
Cabinet  to  dispose  of  diplomatic  questions  which  the  War 
had  left  unsettled,  but  after  his  speech  at  Auburn  on  May 
22,  1866,  and  finally  his  address  to  his  neighbors  on  Oc- 
tober 31,  1868,  his  open  support  of  Johnson  and  weak  at- 
tempts to  reconcile  the  jarring  elements  shut  him  off  com- 
pletely from  the  party  which  he  had  so  gallantly  led.  That 
Seward's  grasp  had  become  nerveless  was  apparent.  It 
caused  a  wave  of  sadness  to  sweep  over  many  of  his  some- 
time admirers  to  see  the  inroads  of  age,  but,  especially,  to 
see  his  marytrdom  to  the  cause  of  an  impolitic  and  unyield- 
ing President.  Thurlow  Weed  remained  true  to  the  Phila- 
delphia principle  in  the  campaign  of  1866,  voting  for  Hoff- 
man. Raymond,  however,  could  no  longer  stand  the  in- 
consistencies of  the  President's  course  and  gave  the  support 
of  the  Times  to  the  Republicans. 

Although  the  Democrats  did  not  have  their  machine  suf- 


4IO        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [4IO 

ficiently  organized  to  elect  Hoffman  in  1866,  the  manifest 
growth  and  strength  of  the  Democracy  in  New  York  State 
should  have  given  the  Republicans  warning,  but  they  gave 
no  heed.  Seward  was  discredited,  Conkling  was  promoted 
to  the  United  States  Senate,  that  the  State  might  have  a 
voice,  and  Fenton  was  conspicuously  trusted.  The  faith 
of  the  Republicans  in  Fenton  proved  to  be  ill-placed.  Fen- 
ton was  of  low  origin,  a  man  of  small  calibre  and  a  poli- 
tician merely.  To  his  mal-administration  may  be  credited, 
for  the  most  part,  the  loss  of  the  State  to  the  Democrats, 
and  the  furnishing  of  the  opportunity  for  the  Democrats  to 
give  their  period  of  control  succeeding  1868  an  unending 
notoriety. 

The  first  distinctive  feature,  then,  of  this  period  from 
1865  to  1869  in  New  York  State  was  the  attempt  of  the 
Democracy  to  rehabilitate  itself  and  co-operate  with  the 
Southern  States  against  Radical  Reconstruction  under 
cover  of  a  union  with  the  Conservative  Republicans,  based 
on  the  Philadelphia  platform.  The  second  distinctive 
feature  of  this  period  from  1865-1869  was  the  rise  in 
power  of  the  Democrats  of  the  State  under  the  direction  of 
Tammany  Hall.  Hoffman's  appearance  in  State  politics  and 
his  election  to  the  governorship  in  1868  marked  the  begin- 
ning of  a  new  era  in  Democratic  control. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  fraudulent  registration  and 
illegal  voting  materially  aided  in  the  Republican  defeat  of 
1867,  the  presence  of  large  Democratic  gains  up-State 
showed  that  the  Republican  defeat  was  due  to  other  causes. 
Among  these  causes  which  produced  the  tidal  wave  of 
public  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  Democrats  may  be  at- 
tributed broadly:  the  general  disgust  of  the  Conservative 
Republicans  and  Democrats  with  the  leadership  of  men 
like  Stevens,  Sumner  and  Greeley ;  the  treatment  of  Recon- 
struction to  the  exclusion  of  other  matters  of  national  in- 


4H]  CONCLUSION  4II 

terest;  the  loss  of  faith  in  the  Republican  State  party 
because  of  corruption  in  office  and  corrupt  nominees;  the 
Republican  advocacy  of  the  excise  law  and  the  metropolitan 
ordinances;  the  abandonment  of  the  principles  of  the  War 
irrespective  of  party,  and  the  general  apathy  within  the 
Radical  ranks.  Republican  sentiment  in  general  showed 
that  the  rebuke  was  merited  on  account  of  their  cowardice 
on  negro  suffrage  in  the  Constitutional  and  State  conven- 
tions, and  because  of  the  host  of  political  adventurers  who 
had  been  attracted  to  the  party  for  selfish  purposes. 

The  reality  and  strength  of  the  organization  which  the 
Democrats  had  been  building  during  this  period  of  trans- 
formation from  1865  to  1869  was  made  manifest  when  the 
State  was  carried  by  Seymour  over  Grant  by  10,000  votes 
and  by  Hoffman  over  Griswold  by  27,946.  It  is  true  that 
the  Republicans  anticipated  huge  naturalization  frauds,  that 
the  United  States  District  Court  took  cognizance  of  the 
matter,  that  the  secret  circular  was  sent  out,  and  that  un- 
doubted frauds  were  revealed  by  the  Congressional  inves- 
tigation committee;  nevertheless,  it  is  equally  true  that  the 
Democrats  of  New  York  City  and  up-State  had  reorgan- 
ized and  rehabilitated  their  party  to  the  extent  that  they 
were  able  to  effectively  defeat  the  Republicans  of  the  State 
by  taking  advantage  of  the  public  disgust  with  the  Radical 
Fenton  administration.  The  mal-administration  of  the 
canals  under  Fenton,  the  venality  of  the  legislature  as  re- 
vealed in  the  Erie  war,  and  the  notoriously  corrupt  char- 
acter of  many  of  the  Republican  candidates  and  officials 
recognized  by  Fenton,  made  a  stench  in  the  public's  nostrils 
which  counteract  the  remembrance  of  Copperheadism. 

The  Democratic  victory  in  1868  in  New  York,  then, 
marks  the  end  of  an  era  of  readjustment  and  transforma- 
tion in  the  Democratic  ranks  and  the  beginning  of  a  new 
era  in  the  control  of  the  State.     The  exposures  of  1871 


4I2        POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE      [4I2 

which  resulted  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Tweed  ring,  dis- 
closed the  powerful  political  mechanism  which  had  been 
constructed  in  the  State  under  Tammany  from  1865- 1869. 
Likewise,  the  prosecution  of  the  canal  ring  in  1874-5  by 
Tilden  disclosed  roots  which  extended  deeply  into  Fenton's 
administrations  from  1864- 1868.  It  is  to  be  seen,  thus, 
that  both  parties  were  open  to  and  suffered  from  the  manip- 
ulations of  corrupt  men  who  were  able  to  make  use  of  the 
transitory  period  from  1865- 1869  to  organize  under  cover 
of  the  general  social,  industrial  and  political  disturbance 
of  the  period.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  neither  a  Tweed  ring, 
nor  a  Fenton  administration  would  be  tolerated  at  the  pres- 
ent day.  The  plane  of  public  sentiment  is  unquestionably 
higher  than  it  was  during  the  chaotic  days  of  the  early  Re- 
construction period,  when  fraud  was  rife  in  both  the  State 
and  national  administrations. 

In  1868  we  find  new  groupings  of  party  leaders.  Among 
the  Democrats,  Horatio  Seymour  had  finally  lost  counten- 
ance as  a  national  leader.  In  1865  the  Republican  party 
was  suffering  from  the  dissensions  largely  attributable  to 
Thurlow  Weed  through  the  Civil  War  period,  but  by  J  868 
he  had  practically  lost  his  power  with  both  the  Democrats 
and  Republicans.  Samuel  J.  Tilden  was  aspiring  to  Sey- 
mour's place  in  the  Democratic  national  party,  a  position 
which  Tilden  attained  in  the  following  decade.  In  New 
York  State,  Hoffman  was  the  nominal  head  of  the  Democ- 
racy. However,  as  is  known  now,  and  as  was  generally 
suspected  then,  Tweed  was  the  power  behind  the  throne,  a 
power,  however,  which  was  closely  contested  by  the  up- 
State  Democrats  and  by  Samuel  J.  Tilden. 

Among  the  Republicans  in  1868,  we  find  that  the  power- 
ful machine  which  Fenton  had  constructed  had  been 
chiefly  destroyed.  Notwithstanding,  Fenton  was  able  to 
secure  his  election  to  the  United  States  Senate  in  January, 


4I3]  CONCLUSION  413 

1869,  where,  however,  he  came  into  abrupt  collision  with 
Roscoe  Conkling.  The  State  machine  which  Conkling  had 
been  organizing  in  opposition  to  Fenton  beginning  in  1867, 
was  unquestionably  in  the  ascendant  in  1868  and  was  domi- 
nant in  the  era  following  1868.  Horace  Greeley,  although 
he  made  an  uncertain  leader,  was  still  a  power  in  Repub- 
lican ranks  through  his  control  of  the  Tribune.  His  in- 
satiable desire  for  public  office  led  him  to  defeat  at  the 
hands  of  Conkling  in  1867,  and,  also,  in  1868  through  the 
treachery  of  Fenton.  Nevertheless,  he  covered  his  wounds, 
biding  his  time  until  he  led  the  Liberal  Republican  move- 
ment in  1872.  Henry  J.  Raymond  kept  the  Times  in  accord 
with  the  Republican  party,  but  he  remained  outside  the 
breastworks  personally,  making  no  attempt  to  renew  his 
former  relationship  with  the  party.  Blaine  claimed  that 
Raymond's  parliamentary  failure  was  a  keen  disappoint- 
ment to  him  and  tended  to  cut  short  his  useful  life. 

With  the  failure  of  the  Philadelphia  principle,  and  of  the 
Democrats  singly,  to  evolve  out  of  chaos  of  the  period  of 
1 865- 1 869  an  organization  sufficient  to  overcome  the  popu- 
larity of  a  great  military  hero,  the  Radicals  were  assured 
that  they  could  drink  the  cup  of  vengeance  to  the^  full. 
Had  Seymour  and  Blair  been  elected  in  1868,  it  is  fair  to 
assume  that  certain  of  the  previous  Reconstruction  acts  of 
the  Radical  Congress  would  have  been  abrogated  or 
amended,  and  that  the  readjustment  of  the  difficult  situa- 
tions in  the  South  would  have  followed  more  natural  lines. 
What  effect  this  would  have  had  upon  the  political  and 
economic  condition  of  the  South  it  is  impossible  to  state. 
It  would  seem,  nevertheless,  that  there  would  have  been  less 
bloodshed,  less  sectional  hatred  engendered,  a  saner  and 
speedier  conception  of  what  was  for  the  best  interests  of 
the  nation  as  a  whole,  had  an  administration  been  returned 
other  than  that  of  the  Radicals. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


The  bibliography  which  follows  is  aimed  merely  to  suggest  the  main 
groups  of  material  consulted  on  the  period.  No  attempt  has  been 
made  at  completeness. 

I.  NEWSPAPERS 

*Albany  Argus  1865-68 

♦Albany  Evening  Journal  1865-68 

Albany  Freeholder  1845-54 

Auburn  Advertiser   1865 

*Binghamton  Daily  Republican    1865-68 

Boston  ( Mass.)  Post  i858 

Boston  (Mass.)   Transcript 1865 

Bridgeport  (Conn.)  Standard  i858 

Brooklyn   Union   1868 

*Broome  Weekly  Republican 1865-68 

*Buffalo  Commercial  Advertiser   1865-68 

Buffalo  Daily  Courier 1865-68 

♦Buffalo  Express   1865-68 

Cincinnati   (O.)   Commercial  i858 

Cincinnati   (O.)   Gazette   1868 

Cincinnati  ( O. )  Enquirer  1868 

Charleston  (S.  C.)  Courier 1867 

Charleston  (S.  C.)  Mercury 1868 

Chautauqua  Democrat   1867 

Chicago   (111.)  Republican  1867 

Chicago   (111.)    Times 1868 

Chicago   (111.)    Tribune 1868 

Columbus   (O.)    Statesman  1868 

Des  Moines  ( la.)  Statesman  1868 

Elmira  Daily  Advertiser  1865 

Hartford   (Conn.)   Courant   1868 

Hartford  ( Conn. )    Times   1868 

Hudson   Register   1866 

Lancaster   ( Pa.)   Intelligencer  1868 

Newark  (N.  J.)  Democrat 1868 

Newburgh  Press    1866 

414  [414 


415]  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE  4!5 

New  York  Citizen  1868 

♦New  York  Commercial  Advertiser  1865-68 

♦New  York  Evening  Post  1865-68 

♦New  York  Herald   1865-68 

New  York  News  1865 

♦New  York  Sun 1867-68 

♦New  York  Times  1865-68 

♦New  York  Tribune  1864-68 

♦New  York  World  1865-68 

♦Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal  1865-68 

Perm  Yan  Chronicle  1867 

Philadelphia  (Pa.)  Press  :...  1868 

Providence  (R.  I.)  Journal  1868 

♦Rochester  Daily  Democrat  1865-68 

♦Rochester  Daily  Union  and  Advertiser  1855-68 

Springfield   (Mass.)  Republican   1865,68 

♦Syracuse  Daily  Courier  and  Union   1865-68 

♦Syracuse  Daily  Journal  1865-68 

♦Syracuse  Daily  Standard   1865-68 

*The  Independent,  New  York   1866-68 

The  Universe,  Philadelphia  1866 

Toledo  (O.)  Blade  1868 

Troy  Daily  Times  1865 

Troy  Press  1866 

♦Utica  Daily  Observer 1865-68 

♦Utica  Morning  Herald  ■ 1865-68 

Washington   (D.  C)   Chronicle   1867 

Washington   (D.  C.)   National  Intelligencer  1868 

Wilmington  (N.  C.)  Journal  1868 

The  starred  papers  in  the  above  list  have  been  closely  followed  for 
the  period.  Of  the  New  York  City  papers:  the  Times  (Henry  J. 
Raymond),  the  Tribune  (Horace  Greeley),  and  the  Evening  Post 
(Parke  Godwin),  were  found  to  be  the  most  reliable  Republican  or- 
gans; the  World  (Manton  Marble),  the  only  reliable  Democratic  or- 
gan; the  Herald  (James  Gordon  Bennett),  purporting  to  be  independ- 
ent and  paying  chief  attention  to  politics,  was  in  a  state  of  unstable 
equilibrium;  the  Commercial  Advertiser  (Thurlow  Weed),  was  quasi- 
Democratic,  independent  and  Republican  at  different  periods;  the  Sun 
(Charles  A.  Dana),  claiming  to  be  independent  developed  decided 
leanings  towards  Democracy;  and  The  Independent  (Theodore 
Tilton),  although  it  represented  the  religious  and  conscientious  part 
of  the  community,  belied  its  name,  for  its  editorials  were  pre-eminently 
partisan.  The  up-State  journals  of  both  parties  were  apt  to  follow  the 
editorial  trend  of  the   New  York   City  papers.     There  were   several 


4i6  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE  [4j6 

notable  exceptions,  however,  to  this  statement.  Although  Thurlow 
Weed  had  ceased  his  control  of  the  Albany  Evening  Journal,  that 
organ  still  exerted  a  great  control  over  the  State.  William  Cassidy, 
of  the  Albany  Argus,  was  perhaps  the  leading  Democratic  up-State 
editor.  Ellis  H.  Roberts,  of  the  Utica  Morning  Herald,  and  Carroll 
E.  Smith  of  the  Syracuse  Daily  Journal,  were  the  rivals  for  the 
editorial  leadership  of  the  up-State  Republican  press.  All  three  were 
molders  of  public  opinion. 

II.  MAGAZINES 

American  Historical  Review.     The,  14  vols.     N.  Y.,  1910. 
Harper's  Weekly,  1865-68.     Harper  Brothers,  N.  Y. 
Nation,  The,  1865-68,  vii  vols.    E.  L.  Godkin  &  Co.,  N.  Y. 
Tribune  Almanac.     New  York,  1864-68. 
World  Almanac.    New  York,  1865-68. 

III.  LAWS— NEW  YORK  STATE 

for  the  following  years:  1832,  '41,  '43,  '44,  '45,  '46,  '50,  '54,  '55,  '56,  '57, 
'60,  '61,  '64,  '65,  '66,  '68,  '70,  '92,  '96  and  '98. 

IV.  CASES 

Board  of  Excise  v.  Merchant,  103  N.  Y.  143. 

Dawson  v.  Horan,  51  Barb.  459. 

Knight  v.  Campbell,  62  Barb.  16. 

Metropolitan  Board  of  Excise  v.  John  Harris  et  al.,  34  N.  Y.  657. 

People  v.  Burleigh,  1  N.  Y.  Crim.  Rep.  522. 

People  v.  Clarke,  13  N.  Y.  378. 

People  v.  Grant,  12  How.  Pr.  83. 

People  v.  Lyon,  27  Hun.  180. 

People  v.  Van  Rensselaer  et  al,  9  N.  Y.  291. 

Rodman  v.  Munson,  13  Barb.  188. 

Wynehamer  v.  People,  13  N.  Y.  378. 

V.  DOCUMENTS 

Annual  Report  of  the  Adjutant  General  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

Albany,  1865. 
Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association.     New  York, 

1886  et  seq.;  Washington,  1890  et  seq. 
Annual  Report  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  ii  parts.       New  York, 

1865. 
Annual  Report  of  the   City  Superintendent  of  Schools.     New  York, 

1865-66. 
Annual  Report  of  the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Education. 

New  York,  1865-66. 


4I7]  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE  4!7 

Annual  Report  of  the  Superintendent  of  the  Banking  Department  of 

the  State  of  New  York.    Albany,  1866. 
Assembly  Documents.    Albany,  1840-55. 
Assembly  Documents.    Albany,  1866. 
Assembly  Documents.    Albany,  1868. 
Census  of  the  State  of  New  York  for  1865,  edited  by  Franklin  B. 

Hugh.     Albany,  1866. 
City  Mission  and  Tract  Society  Reports.     New  York,  1865. 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1867-68,  The.   Documents.    Albany,  1868. 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1894,  Revised  Records  of  the.     Albany, 

1895. 
Constitutional  Convention  Proceedings,  1846.    Albany,  1847. 
Constitutional  Proceedings  and  Debates.     Albany,  1868. 
Eighth  Census  of  the  United  States.     Washington,  i860. 
Executive  Documents,  1st  Sess.,  39'.h  Cong.    Washington,  1865. 
Gazetteer  of  the  State  of  New  York,  edited  by  Franklin  B.   Hugh. 

Albany,  1873. 
Journal  of  the  Constitutional  Commission  of  1872-3.    Albany,  1873. 
Legislative  Assembly  Journal,  Albany,  1846. 
Legislative  Assembly  Journal,  Albany,  1864. 

Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  edited  by  James  D.  Richard- 
son, x  vols.    Washington,  1896. 
Messages  from  the  Governors,  State  of  New  York,  edited  by  Charles 

Z.  Lincoln,  xi  vols.    Albany,  1909. 
New  York  State  Comptroller's  Report.    Albany,  1866. 
Reports  of  Committees,  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  3rd  Sess., 

40th  Cong.    Washington,  1869. 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Volunteering  of  the  County  of  New  York, 

ii  vols.    New  York,  1866. 
Report  of  the  Council  of  Hygiene  and  Public  Health  of  the  Citizens 

Association  of  New  York  upon  the  sanitary  condition  of  the  city. 

New  York,  1865. 
Report  of  the  State  Commissioner  of  Banks.    Albany,  1867. 
Report  of  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction.     New  York  1866. 
Selected   Documents   of    United   States   History,   edited   by   William 

MacDonald,  iii  vols.     New  York,  1907. 
Senate  Documents.    Albany,  1835-1851. 
Senate  Documents.    Albany,  1865. 
Senate  Documents.    Albany,  1866. 
Senate  Documents.    Albany,  1868. 
Senate  Documents.    Albany,  1869. 

Senate  Executive  Documents,  1st  Sess ,  39th  Cong.     Washington,  1866. 
Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  3rd  Sess.,  40th  Cong.     Washington, 


4i8  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE  rwg 

Temperance    Convention,   Proceedings    of    the    Fifth   National,    1865. 

New  York,  1865. 
Temperance    Convention,   Proceedings   of    the    Sixth   National,    1868. 

New  York,  1868. 
United  States  Congress  Report,  New   York  election  frauds,  Feb.  23, 

1869,    edited   by    William    Lawrence.     Washington,    1869. 

VI.  MISCELLANEOUS 

HISTORIES,    WORKS,    SPEECHES,    AND    BIOGRAPHIES    OF    CONTEMPORARY 

STATESMEN    AND    POLITICIANS 

With  the  exception  of  Alexander,  A  Political  History  of  the  State 
of  New  York,  vol.  iii,  which  covers  the  period  of  this  monograph  in 
a  brief  popular  treatment,  most  of  the  books  listed  below  contain 
little  of  direct  value  for  our  purpose.  Indirectly  they  are  of  value 
in  giving  side-lights  on  the  various  politicians,  and  the  general  political 
movements  of  the  State  in  relation  to  the  broader  national  movements. 

Adams,  Jr.,  Charles  Francis,  Chapters  of  Erie.     Boston,  1871. 
Alexander,  De  Alva  Stanwood,  A  Political  History  of  the  State  of 

New  York,  iii  vols.     New  York,  1909. 
Appleton's  Annual  Encyclopedia  or  The  American  Annual  Cyclopedia. 

New  York,  1865-9. 
Autobiography  of  Andrew  Dickson  White,  ii  vols.     New  York,  1905. 
Autobiography  of  Oliver  Otis  Howard,  ii  vols.     New  York,  1907. 
Badeau,  Adam,  Grant  in  Peace.    Hartford,  1887. 
Bancroft,  Frederic,  Life  of  Seward,  ii  vols.     New  York,  1900. 
Bancroft,  Frederic,  The  Negro  in  Politics.     New  York,  1885. 
Bench  and  Bar  of  New   York,  History  of  the,  edited  by  Board  of 

Editors,  ii  vols.     New  York,  1897. 
Bigelow,  John,  The  Life  of  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  ii  vols.     New  York,  1895. 
Biography,    The   National    Cyclopedia    of   American,    xv    vols.     New 

York,  1893-9. 
Bishop,  Joseph  Bucklin,  Our  Political  Drama.     New  York,  1904. 
Blaine,  James  G.,  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  ii  vols.     Norwich,  Conn., 

1884. 
Breen,  Matthew  R.,  Thirty  Years  of  New  York  Politics.    New  York, 

1899. 
Brummer,  Sidney  D.,  A   Political  History  of  New  York  during  the 

Civil  War.     New  York,  191 1. 
Burgess,  John  W.,  The  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution,  ii  vols.    New 

York,  1906. 
Cary,  Edward,  George  William  Curtis.     New  York,  1894. 
Clews,  Henry,  Fifty  Years  in  Wall  Street.    New  York,  1908. 


419]  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE  4!9 

Conkling,  Alfred  R.,  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Roscoe  Conkling.    New 

York,  1889. 
Cook,  Theodore  P.,  The  Life  and  Public  Services  of  Samuel  J.  Tilden. 

New  York,  1876. 
Cooper,  Thomas  V.,  American  Politics.     Chicago,  111.,  1882. 
Cox,  Jacob  Dolson,  Military  Reminiscences  of  the  Civil  War,  ii  vols. 

New  York,  1900. 
Crapsey,  Edward,  The  Nether  Side  of  New  York.    New  York,  1872. 
Croly,  David  G.,  Seymour  and  Blair,  (campaign  book).    New  York, 

1868. 
Cullum,  Shelby  M.,  Fifty  Years  of  Public  Service.    Chicago,  111.,  191 1. 
Curtis,  Francis,  The  Republican  Party,  1854-1904,  ii  vols.     New  York, 

1904. 
Dana,  Charles  Anderson,  Recollections  of  the  Civil  War.    New  York, 

1898. 
Davenport,  John  I.,  Population  of  New  York.    New  York,  1884. 
Davenport,  John  I.,  The  Election  and  Naturalization  Frauds  in  New 

York  City,  1860-70,  1st  ed.    New  York,  1894. 
Dawes,  Anna  Laurens,  Charles  Sumner.    New  York,  1898. 
Dewitt,  David  Miller,  The  Impeachment  and  Trial  of  Andrew  John- 
son.   New  York,  1903. 
Dilla,  Harriet  M.,   The  Politics  of  Michigan,   1865- 1878.    New  York, 

1912. 
Drew,  SkeUh  of  the  Life   of  Daniel,   The  National   Cyclopedia   of 

American  Biography,  xi,  pp.  502-3.     New  York,  1901. 
Dunning,  William  A.,  Essays  on  the  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction. 

New  York,  1904. 
Dunning,  William  A.,  Reconstruction  Political  and  Economic.     New 

York,   1907. 
Encyclopedia    of    Contemporary    Biography    of    New    York,    4    vols. 

New  York,  1887. 
Fairlie,  John  Archibald,  Centralisation  in  New  York.   New  York,  1898. 
Fiske,  Stephen,  Off-Hand  Portraits  of  Prominent  New  Yorkers.    New 

York,  1884. 
Fite,    Emerson    David,    The   Presidential   Compaign    of   i860.      New 

York,  191 1. 
Fleming,  Walter  L.,  Documentary  History  of  Reconstruction,  ii  vols. 

Cleveland,  O.,  1906. 
Garner,   James    Wilford,   Reconstruction   in   Mississippi.     New   York, 

1901. 
Godwin,  Parke,  Life  of  Bryant.     New  York,  1883. 
Gorham,  George  G,  Life  and  Public  Services  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton, 

ii  vols.     Boston,   1899. 
Greeley,  Horace,  Recollections  of  a  Busy  Life.     New  York,  1868. 


420  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE  [420 

Greeley,  Horace,  The  American  Conflict,  ii  vols.  Hartford,  Conn., 
1866. 

Hadley,  Arthur  T.,  Railroad  Transportation.     New  York,   1908. 

Hall,  A.  Oakey,  Horace  Greeley  decently  dissected  in  a  letter  on 
Horace  Greeley  addressed  by  A.  Oakey  Hall  to  Joseph  Hoxie. 
New  York,  1862. 

Hall,  William  Edward,  A  Treatise  on  International  Law,  5th  ed. 
Oxford,  1904. 

Halstead,  Murat,  Political  Conventions  of  i860.  Compiled  from  cor- 
respondence of  the  Cincinnati  Commercial.    Columbus,  O.,  i860. 

Harlow,  S.  >R.,  and  Hutchins,  S.  C,  Life  Sketches  of  State  Officers, 
Senators,  and  Assemblymen  of  New  York  in  1868.    Albany,  1868. 

Hart,  Albert  Bushnell,  Salmon  Portland  Chase.    Boston,  1899. 

Herbert,  Hilary  Abner,   Why  the  Solid  South.    Baltimore,   1890. 

Hoar,  George  Frisbie,  Autobiography  of  Seventy  Years,  ii  vols.  New 
York,  1903. 

Hovey,  Carl,  The  Life  Story  of  J.  Pierpont  Morgan.    New  York,  191 1. 

Johnson,  Emory  R.,  American  Railway  Transportation.  New  York, 
1908. 

Johnston,  Alexander,  and  Woodburn,  James  Albert,  American  Politi- 
cal History,  ii  vols.     New  York,  1905. 

Julian,  George  Washington,  Political  Recollections  1840-1872.  Chicago. 
1884. 

Lalor,  John  J.,  Cyclopedia  of  Political  Science,  iii  vols.     New  York, 

1893. 

Lewis,  Alfred  Henry,  The  Boss  and  how  he  came  to  rule  New  York. 
New  York,  1903. 

Lieber,  Francis,  Changes  in  the  present  Constitution  of  New  York. 
New  York,  1867. 

Lieber,  Francis,  Civil  Liberty  and  Self -Gov  eminent,  ii  vols.  Phila- 
delphia, 1853. 

Lincoln,  Charles  Z.,  Constitutional  History  of  New  York,  v  vols. 
New  York,  1906. 

Livingston,  John,  The  Erie  Railway;  Its  History  and  Management. 
Pamphlet  No.  10  of  ii  vols.     New  York,  1875. 

Lothrop,  Thornton  Kirkland,  William  Henry  Seward.     Boston,  1899. 

McCabe,  James  Dabney,  Life  and  Public  Services  of  Horatio  Seymour, 
(campaign  book).    New  York,  1868. 

MacCabe,  James  Dabney,  The  Secrets  of  The  Great  City.  Phila- 
delphia, 1868. 

McCall,  Samuel  W.,  Thaddeus  Stevens,  edited  by  J.  T.  Morse.  Boston, 
1899. 

McClure,  Colonel  A.  K.,  Recollections  of  Half  a  Century.  Salem, 
Mass.,  1902. 


42 1 ]  '       BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE  42i 

McCulloch,  Hugh,  Men  and  Measures.    New  York,  1888. 

McKee,  Thomas   Hudson,   The  National  Conventions  and  Platforms 

of  all  Political  Parties,  1789- 1900.     Baltimore,  1900. 
McLaughlin,  J.  Fairfax,   The  Life  and   Times  of  John  Kelly.     New- 
York,  1885. 
McPherson,   Edward,  A   History  of  Reconstruction,  2nd  ed.     Wash- 
ington, 1875. 
Magoon,  Charles  E.,   The  Law  of  Civil  Government  under  Military 

Occupation.     Washington,   1902. 
Mathews,  J.  M.,  Recollections  of  Persons  and  Events  in  New  York. 

New  York,  1865. 
Maverick,    Augustus,    Raymond    and    New    York    Journalism.     Hart- 
ford, Conn.,  1870. 
Mott,  Howard  H.,  Between  the  Ocean  and  the  Lakes;  the  Story  of 

the  Erie.    New  York,  1899. 
Murray,  David,  The  Anti-Rent  Episode  in  the  State  of  New  York, 

(In   the   American   Historical   Association   Annual   Report,    1896, 

i,  PP.  137-173). 
Myers,  Gustavus,  The  History  of  Tammany  Hall.     New  York,  1901. 
Nasby,  Petroleum  V.,  (David  Ross  Locke),  Swingin'  round  the  Cirkle. 

Boston,  1867. 
New   York  City — Government  Corruption,  A  series  of   19  pamphlets 

paying  special  attention  to  the  Tweed  Ring.     Columbia  University 

Library  no.  978  N.  48,  Z  9. 
New    York    City — Politics,   ii    vols.,    pamphlets,    Columbia    University 

Library  no.  978  N.  48,  Z  II. 
Oberholtzer,   Ellis    Paxson,  Jay   Cooke,  Financier  of  the   Civil   War. 

Philadelphia,  1907. 
O'Conor,  Charles,  Address  of,  The  Constitution.    New  York,  1877. 
Paine,   Albert    Bigelow,    Thomas   Nast — his  period   and   his   pictures. 

New  York,  1904. 
Parton,  James,  Famous  Americans.     Boston,   1867. 
Parton,  James,  How  New  York  City  is  Governed.     Boston,  1866. 
Parton,  James,  Men  of  Progress,  ii  vols.     Cincinnati,  1870-71. 
Perry,    Thomas    Sergeant,T/i*    Life   and   Letters    of   Francis   Lieber. 

Boston,  1882. 
Pierce,  Edward  L.,  Memoir  and  Letters  of  Charles  Sumner,  iv  vols. 

Boston,  1893. 
Porter,  George  H.,  Ohio  Politics  during  the  Civil  War  Period.     New 

York,  191 1. 
Republican   Party,   Official   Proceedings   of   the   National   Convention 

of  the,  1868.     Chicago,   1868. 
Rhodes,  James  Ford,  History  of  the  United  States,  1850-1877,  vii  vols. 

New  York,  1896. 


422  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE  [422 

Schurz,  Carl,  The  Reminiscences  of,  iii  vols.     New  York,  1908. 

Scott,  James  Brown,   Cases  on  International  Law.     St.   Paul,   Minn., 

1906. 
Seward,    William    H.,    The    Works   of   William   H.   Seward,   v    vols., 

edited  by  George  E.  Baker:  1st  3  vols.,  New  York,  1853;  vols.  4 

and  5,  Boston,  1884;  vol.  5,  The  Diplomatic  History  of  the  War 

for  the   Union. 
Seward,  William  H.,  An  Autobiography,  iii  vols.,  edited  by  Frederick 

W.  Seward.     New  York,  1891. 
Sherman  Letters,   The,  edited  by  Rachel   Sherman  Thorndike.     New 

York,   1894. 
Sherman,  John,  Recollections  of  forty  years  in  the  House,  Senate  and 

Cabinet.    An  Autobiography,  ii  vols.     New  York,  1895. 
Smith,   Matthew  Hale,  Sunshine  and  Shadow  in  New   York.    Hart- 
ford, Conn.,  1883. 
Stanton,  Elizabeth  Cady,  Reminiscences  of  Eighty   Years  and  More. 

London,   1898. 
Stanwood,    Edward,   A    History    of   Presidential   Elections.     Boston, 

1892,  3rd  ed. 
Stead,  W.  T.,  Satan's  invisible  world  displayed:  or,  Despairing  demo- 
cracy; a  study  of  Greater  New  York.    London,  1897. 
Stevenson,  Adlai  E.,  Something  of  Men  I  have  known.    Chicago,  111., 

1909. 
Storey,  Moorfield,  Charles  Sumner.    Boston,  1901. 
Sumner,  Charles,  The  Works  of  Charles  Sumner,  xv  vols.     Boston, 

1870. 
Sweeny,  P.  B.     On  the  ring  frauds  and  other  public  questions;  taken 

from  his  interviews  and  other  papers.    New  York,   1894. 
Swinton,  William,  How  the  Ring  ran  Pacific  mail:  a  story  of  Wall 

Street.    New  York,   1867. 
Tarbell,  Ida  M.,  The  History  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company,  ii  vols. 

New  York,  1904. 
Townsend,  John  O.,  New  York  in  Bondage.    New  York,  1901. 
Vanderbilt,   Life    of    Cornelius,   Appleton's    Cyclopedia    of   American 

Biography,  vii  vols.    New  York,  1889. 
Weed,   Thurlow,  Autobiography   of,   edited  by  his   daughter   Harriet 

A.  Weed.     Boston,  1884. 
Weed,  Thurlow,  The  Life  of,  edited  by  his  grandson  Thurlow  Weed 

Barnes.     Boston,  1884. 
Weed,  Thurlow,  What  I  know  about  Horace  Greeley's  secession,  war 

and   diplomatic   record,   a   letter  written   in    1870   to    Thomas   C. 

Acton,  New  York,  1872,  No.  10  of  a  vol.  of  pamphlets.     Columbia 

University  Library  no.  329.01,  N  2d. 
Welles,  Gideon,  The  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  iii  vols.     Boston,  191 1. 


423]  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE  423 

Westlake,  John,  International  Law,  ii  vols.     Cambridge,  (Eng.)    1904. 
Wharton,  Francis,  A  Digest  of  The  International  Law  of  the  United 

States,  iii  vols.     Washington,  1886. 
Williams,   Talcott,   Tammany  Hall,    (In  Historic  New   York,    1899). 

New  York,  1899. 
Wilson,  Henry,  History  of  Reconstruction.     Hartford,  1868. 
Woodburn,  James  Albert,  American  Politics.    New  York,  1903. 


INDEX 


Abbe.  Joshua  G.,  93,  166,  307,  356 

Adams,  Charles  H.,  elector.  355 

Alberger.  Franklin  A.,  of  Erie,  41 

Allen,  judge  of  Court  of  Appeals, 
224 

Allen,  Augustus  F.,  244,  note 

Allen,  Benjamin,  friend  of  Conkling's, 
386 

Allen,  Cornelius  L. ,  suggestion  time 
limit  for  Governor's  signature.  212 

Allen,  Norman,  353,  note;  elector, 
355 

Allen,  William  F.,  elected,  208,  323 

Al  I  is.  Augustus  G.  8..  on  committee 
to  investigate  Glenn's  charges,  1.86, 
287 

Alvord.  Thomas  G.,  of  Onondaga.  44; 
93;  candidate  for  Senator,  147;  dele- 
gate to  constitutional  convention, 
213;  head  of  N.  Y.  delegation  at 
Chicago,  310 

Anderson,  George  B.,  307 

Andrews,  t  harles,  delegate  to  consti- 
tutional convention,  2' 3;  member 
judiciary  committee,  215;  judge  of 
Court  of  Appeals,  224;  delegate  at 
large,  306 

Andrews,  Rufus.  urges  renomination 
of  Alvord,    93;  supports   organiza- 
tion, 164;  hands  up  list  of  contest-  j 
ants,  303:  and  Van   Kuren  reply  to 
Spencer,  305;  at  Chicago,  310 

Anti-rent  agitation  revived,  1866;  in- 
fluence on  campaign;  disturbances 
in  Berne;  comment  of  Times.  125 

Anthony.  Susan  B.  Woman's  Suf- 
frage. 337.  note 

Aryus  (Albany),  terms  Barlow's  nom- 
ination an  insult  to  Democrats, 
58;  tells  Greeley  he  lacks  the  cour- 
age to  make  a  leader,  61;  opinion 
of  Fenton,  94;  defends  Hoffman 
against  Greeley,  129;  sums  up  work 

425J 


of  constitutional  convention,  257, 
note;  rejoices  over  Dem.  Nat  Con. , 
319;  says  Griswold  was  nominated 
by  Fentonites,  359;  attacks  Gris- 
wold, 375;  on  Seymour  and  Blair, 
382 

Armstrong,  Cornelius  W. ,  of  Albany, 
53 

Armstrong,  John,  323 

A  mot,  Stephen  S..  179,  364,  3C8 

Asell,  David  H.,  107 

Ashman,  VV.  F..307 

Astor,  John  Jacob,  War  Dem.  Cooper 
Union.  1868.  383 

Astor.  William  B.,  War  Dem.,  Cooper 
Union,  1868,  383 

Averill,  W.  J.,  53,  107;  nominated 
for  Gov.,  363;  361;  3o8 

Baker,  amendment  to  judiciary  article, 
216 

Baker,  A.  D.,307 

Balcom.  Ransom,  candidate  for  Sen- 
ator, 147;  Supreme  Court,  Bing- 
hamton,  274 

Barker,  George  B. ,  delegate  to  consti- 
tutional convention,  213;  member 
judiciary  committee,  215;  307 

Barker,  John  W..  368 

Barkley,  Alexander,  307;  nominated 
canal  commissioner,  354-5;  vote  for 
canal  commissioner.  1868,  392 

Barlow,  Gen.  Francis  C,  of  New 
York,  53;  nominated  for  secretary 
of  state.  57;  conduct  during  war  as- 
sailed.   69:  praised    for  bravery  at 

'  Antietam,  70;  shows  lack  of  ill-will, 
96;  131;  attacks  on  Canal  Ring, 
161;  nominated  secretary  of  state, 
166 

Barnard,,  Daniel  P.,  delegate  to  con- 
stitutional convention,  213;  reads 
letter  from  Sen.  Murphy,  362;  365 

425 


426 


1MDEX 


[426 


Barnard,  George  G.,  grants  injunction 
against  Erie.  272;  suspends  Drew. 
273;  enjoins  Erie  directors,  274;  in- 
junction, 276;  277;  exercises  pre- 
rogatives to  the  end.  278;  impugned. 
279;  285;  297;  naturalization  record 
of,  398 

Barnes,  Congressman  (Derm),  136 

Barnutn,  Gen.  Henry  W. ,  of  Onon- 
daga, 53;  nominated  inspector  of 
prisons,  57;  citizens  of  Syracuse 
submit  charges  against.  70;  testi- 
mony of  Duane  S.  Hind,  70;  nom- 
inated State  prisons  inspector.  355; 
vote  for  State  prison  inspector,  1868, 
392 

Barrett,  Judge,  turns  Gould  over  to 
special  officer,  285;  angry,  286 

Barto,  Henry  D. ,  53 

Barto,  Henry  D. ,  Jr.,  107 

Bascom,  Oliver,  nominated  canal  com- 
missioner, 367;  vote  for  canal  com- 
missioner, 1868,  392 

Bass,  T.  K..307 

Batchellar.  George  S.,  elector,  355 

Beach,  Allen  C  323;  324;  aspires  to 
lieut. -governorship,  361;  nominated 
for  Gov.,  363;  nomination  unani- 
mous for,  364;  370;  vote  for  lieut.  - 
governor,  1868,  392 

Beach,  Elias,  107 

Beach,  George,  323 

Becker,  George,  361 

Beckwith  offers  amendment,  217 

Beecher,  Henry  Ward,  letter  to  Sol- 
diers' and  Sailors'  Convention;  pre- 
science in  treatment  of  negro  prob- 
lem, 119,  note;  Greeley  opposes; 
comment  of  Times;  makes  ratifica- 
tion speech  for  Radicals,  120;  Octo- 
ber results  substantiate  predictions 
of,  380 

Beebe,  Hiram,  324 

Belden,  Fisk's  partner,  277 

Bell,  James  A.,  93 

Bell,  John,  popular  vote.  1860,  392 

Belmont,  An  ust,  chairman  Dem. 
Nat.  Ex.  Com..  334;  held  firm  for 
Dem.  ticket.  1868,  382;  issues  Dem. 
State  Committee's  address,  384 

Bemis,  Horace,  elector  355 

Bemis.  Matt  P..  Times  accuses,  188; 
Commercial  Advertiser  queries,  189 

Bennett.  James  Gordon,  charges  Hoff- 
man with  corrupt  patronage,  116; 


reminds  public  of  his  prophecy,  138; 
Grant  stronger  than  party,  317; 
favors  Chase.  327;  see  also  herald 

Benton,  Auditor.  World  takes  up  ad- 
missions of,  199 

Bickford,  Marcus,  245,  note 

Bigelow,  John,  373,  note 

Bigler,  Gov.,  escorts  Seymour  to 
chair,  337 

Bill  of  Rights  receives  modifications, 
238 

Bl.ickley.  Ebenezer,  307 

Blade  (Toledo),  opinion  of  Chase, 
336 

Blair,  Francis  P. ,  letter  to  Broadhead, 
'331;  333;  name  for  vice-pres. ,  341; 
378;  offers  to  resign,  381;  attacks 
continue  against,  333;  invades  East, 
384 

Blair,  Montgomery,  follows  Seward's 
footsteps,  73;  speaker  at  Dem.  rally, 
205 

Blakesley,  L,  356 

Blank  nominates  Woodford.  354 

Bliss,  Archibald  M.,307;  testifies  be- 
fore Cong,  com.,  398 

Bliss.  George,  Jr.,  witness  Hale  com- 
mittee. 299 

Blood,  Isaiah,  179,  368 

Bonesdale,  Peter  S. ,  307 

Boole,  Francis  I.  A.,  New  York  City 
health  inspector.  34 

Boston,  Hartford  &  Erie  R.  R. ,  John 
S.  Eld  ridge  elected  pres.  of,  271 

Bowen,  Benjamin  B.,  o07 

Bowne,  Norwood.  353,  note 

Bradford.  William  R..  witness  senate 
committee  on  Erie,  281 

Bradley,  majority  report,  281 

Brady.  James,  chairman  Dem.  rally, 
205;  accuses  Justice  Barnard,  279 

Brady.  John  R.,  testifies  before  Con- 
gress, com.,  397 

Brazee,  Andrew  W.,  307 

Breckinridge,  popular  vote  1860,  392 

Brennan,  Matthew  T..  refuses  renomi- 
nation;  Citizens'  Association  assails; 
Fenton  appoints  commission  to  in- 
vestigate, 141 

Brewers,  hop-growers  and  liquor  deal- 
ers hold  convention,  193;  Arthur 
Brown,  pres.;  Richard  Katzen- 
meyer,  sec,  194 

Briggs,  George,  107 

Bristol,  Wheeler  H. ,  nominated  for 


427} 


INDEX 


427 


treasurer,  179;  elected,  208;  intro- 
duced bill  forbidding  consolidation 
of  Vanderbilt  and  Erie  systems, 
284 

Broadhead,  James  O  ,  331 

Broderick.  Charles  VV.,  307 

Brooks,  Erastus.  moves  for  final  vote 
on  tenure,  222;  proposes  important 
amendment,  244;  245,  note;  chair- 
man state  charities  com.,  247;  523; 
335 

Brooks,  James,  defeats  Mrs.  Elizabeth 
Cady  Stanton,  13b' 

Brown,  Arthur,  president  brewers' 
convention,  194 

Brown,  D.  D.  S.,  connection  with 
Gould.  299:  delegate  at  large,  306 

Brown,  E.  A.,  proposes  trial  by  jury, 
231 

Brown,  John  W. ,  of  Orange,  53 

Brown,  Levi  H.,  nominates  Allen  C. 
Beach,  363 

Brown,  Lewis  H.,  107 

Brown,  Martin  B.,  93,  166 

Brown,  V\  illiam  C. ,  proposes  court  of 
nine,  218;  elector,  355 

Brush,  Augustus  A.,  assemblyman, 
2  7;  Glenn  saw  guilt  in  his  eye, 
288;  denies  knowledge  of  bribery, 
291 

Buffalo,  Bradford  &  Pittsburgh  R.  R. 
lease  to  Erie,  270 

Burdett,  Luther  J..  323 

Burke,  John  K.,  declines  nomination 
for  state  prisons  inspector,  868 

Burrows,  R.  L.,  nominates  Noah 
Davis,  151 

Butler,  Benjamin  F. .  false  statements 
relative  to  Griswold,  375 

Button,  James  R.,  on  committee  to 
investigate  Glenn's  charges,  286 

Button,  Jonas,  324 

Cagger,  Peter,  53;  calls  Albany  con- 
vention to  order,  99;  108;  179;  reso- 
lution in  memory  of,  368 

Caldwell,  Luther,  167;  secretary  const, 
conv. ,  214;  witness  Hale  committee, 
299;  paid  by  both  sides,  300;  appears 
before  Hale  committee,  301;  307-8 

Cameron,  Delos  VV.,  307 

Campaign  of  1865,  minor  personal 
issues,  67;  series  of  petty  party 
quarrels,  74 

Campbell,  Daniel  D.,  elector,  367 


Cardozo,  Albert,  candidate  for  Su- 
preme Court  on  6  tickets,  197;  323; 
324;  naturalization  record  of,  398 

Carpenter,  B.  Plait,  307 

Carter,  Enoch,  323 

Carvell,  Charles  E.,53 

Caryl.  Lorenzo,  323 

Cassidy,  William,  editor  Albany 
Argus',  considers  Unionist  resolu- 
tions narrow,  64;  and  Schumaker 
present  minority  suffrage  report, 
231;  323;  824;  368;  see  also  Argus 

Chamberlain,  G«  n.,  Governor  of 
Maine,  132,  377 

Champlain,  Marshall  B,  nominated 
attorney-general,  179;  elected,  208; 
and  Messrs.  Tappan  and  Schoon- 
maker  present  minority  report, 
243-4;  acts  for  Vanderbilt,  272; 
pres.  Dem.  Convention,  322;  324 

Champion,  Simon  B. ,  elector,  367 

Chandler,  136 

Chapman,  Orlo  W.,  senate  committee 
on  Erie,  280;  at  Svracuse,  351 

Chapman.  C.  H..  352 

Chase.  Salmon  P.,  Radical's  favorite 
candidate,  315;  Rep.  editorial  fav- 
orite, 326-7;  Dem.  disgust  with, 
327;  presidential  candidate.  330; 
833;  hardly  figures  in  balloting, 
3-11;  Seymour  favors,  343;  more  in 
favor  of,  344;  3-46;  thanked,  366; 
372;  again  talked  of  for  Presidency, 
382;  Herald  clings  to,  403 

Chatfield,  Thomas  J..  307 

Cheseboro,  Henry  O. .  county  court 
suggestion  adopted,  22;J;  temporary 
chairman,  361 

Chicago  Convention,  National  Rep. 
nominating  convenes  May  20,  1868; 
new  issues.  309;  six  candidates  for 
Vice-president,  310;  Grant  nomi- 
nated for  Pres.,  312;  strife  over 
Vice-presidency,  312;  platform,  313; 
table  of  vote  on  Vice-pres.,  813, 
note;  comments  of  up-state  press, 
318 

Chronicle  (Penn  Yan),  leads  Rep. 
revolt,  202 

Church,  Judge  of  Court  of  Appeals, 
224 

Church.  Sandford  E.,  favors  war,  25, 
90:  elected  temporary  chairman  of 
1866  Democratic  Convention,  99; 
made   permanent  president  Albany 


428 


INDEX 


[428 


(Pem. )  Convention;  105;  partner- 
ship with  Davis,  140;  delegate  to 
constitutional  convention,  213;  del- 
egate at  large,  323:  prominent  in 
N.  Y.  Con.,  338;  360 

Church,  Col.  Walter  S.,  agent  of  Van 
Rennselaer's  125 

Churchill.  Congressman  (Rad.),  137 

Citizens  Committee  of  New  York  insti- 
tutes reform  of  sanitary  conditions 
in  18G5,  31 

Civil  Rights  Bill,  Congress  passes  over 
President's  veto,  April  6,  1866,  81 

Clark,  Darius,  179 

Clark,  Egbert  A.,  elector,  367 

Clark,  George,  307 

Cleveland,  Grover,  member  com.  on 
resolutions.  362 

Clews,  Henry,  War  Dem. ,  Cooper 
Union,  18(58,  383 

Cobb,  Timothy  D.,  elector,  367 

Cochran,  Robert.  323 

Cochrane,  John,  principal  speaker, 
131 ;  present  at  Cooper  Union  rally, 
1{;0;  307;  at  Syracuse,  351;  Pres. 
Rep.  Con.,  353 

Colby,  John  B.  elector,  367 

Cole,  Asahel  N.,  witness  Hale  com- 
mittee, 299;  testimony  on  Caldwell, 
300;  moves  admission  of  Radicals. 
305 

Colfax.  Schuyler,  named  for  vice-pres., 
310;  312;  nominated  Vice-President. 
313;  career,  315,  note;  356;  candi- 
date for  speaker,  374 

Commercial  Advertiser,  condemns  Re- 
publican convention,  107;  cau- 
tions approval  of  convention,  lhO; 
pays  attention  to  Rep.  State  Con., 
358;  warns  Republicans  against 
Tribune,  372;  places  blame  for  elec- 
tion frauds,  400 

Comstock.  George  F.,  powerful  cam- 
paign factor.  131;  179;  delegate  to 
constitutional  convention,  213;  mem- 
ber judiciary  committee,  215;  pro- 
poses court  of  seven,  218;  moves  to 
strike  out  Brown  substitute,  231; 
objects  to  veto  change.  213;  refuses 
to  commit  himself.  2-8 

Comstock,  Harlow  L.,  candidate  for 
nomination.  107 

Conkling,  Frederick  A.,  359;  nom- 
inated for  Mayor,  404;  defeated, 
405 


Conkling,  Roscoe,  represents  New 
York  in  39th  Cong.,  45;  tours 
State;  strikes  keynote,  127;  extract 
from  speech,  footnote.  128;  131;  137; 
life,  145-0;  press  of  State  pushes 
candidacy,  149;  elected  Senator  on 
5th  ballot.  152;  letter  to  wife;  rise 
meteoric,  154;  World's  opinion  of, 
156;  character  of,  157,  note;  maiden 
speech.  158;  position  in  New  York 
political  life,  158;  president  of  con- 
vention, 159;  takes  chair,  165;  ex- 
ample of  invective,  165,  note;  at 
Utica,  1868,  3(8;  voted  for  Ni- 
agara ship  canal.  389;  frauds  well 
known  to,  394;  407;  promoted.  410; 
in  control  of  Republican  machine  in 
State,  413 

Conklin,  S.  H.,  93 

Conger.  A.  B. ,  presents  platform,  324 

Connollv,  Michael,  candidate  for  office, 
142 

Connolly,  Richard  B. ,  Dem.  nominee 
for  city  comptroller;  elected,  142; 
321 ; 360 

Constitution,  submission  of,  opinion  of 
C.  Z.  Lincoln,  254;  submitted  in  4 
parts,  254;  right  of  legislature  in 
matter,  255;  voted  on  November  2, 
1869;  judiciary  article  approved; 
constitution  rejected,  256;  center  of 
campaign  attack,  265 

Constitutional  Convention,  amend- 
ments submitted,  212,  note;  new 
plan  of  representation,  212:  dele- 
gates to,  213;  William  Wheeler 
chosen  president.  Luther  Caldwell 
secretary,  214;  judiciary  article  un- 
satisfactory, 214;  conservatism  of, 
239;  two  canal  committees  ap- 
pointed; financial  provisions  little 
changed;  proposal  for  superintend- 
ent of  public  works,  213;  finance 
article,  many  amendments  proposed 
and  rejected,  244:  educational,  L'45; 
committee  on  official  corruption, 
246;  Erastus  Brooks  heads  State 
charities  committee,  247;  discussion 
of  adjournment.  2  7;  submission  in 
two  parts  recommended.  248;  Folger 
summarizes  work  of,  248-5H;  consti- 
tution signed;  adjournment,  253; 
political  aspect  of,  256:  Republican 
majority;  Sanford  E.  Church  Dem. 
leader,  257;   press  comments,  264; 


429] 


INDEX 


429 


see  also  Judiciary,  Suffrage,  Bill  of; 
Rights.  Legislature,  Executive 

Cooper,  Charles  H.,  307 

Cooper,  J .  B. ,  356 

Cooper,  Peter,  present  at  Cooper } 
Union  rally,  190 ;  War.  Dem.  ; 
Cooper  Union,  18(8,  383 

Copperheads,  activity  in  connection 
with  draft  riots.  25-26 

Cornell,  Alonzo  B.,  93,  167;  runs  fori 
treasurer,    167:    named    for   lieut.- 
gov.,  354;  vote  for  lieut. -governor, 
1868,  392 

Cornell.  Charles  G.,  1<>8;  corruption 
of,  116;  179;  323;  368 

Cornell,  Ezra,  withdraws  in  favor  of 
Governor  Kenton,  92,  161,  note 

Cornell,  Thomas. Congressman  (Rad), 
137;   elector.  856 

Costello.  Patrick  C,  elector.  355 

Courier  (Charleston,  S.  C),  expresses 
disgust,  20-j 

Cox,  Samuel  S.,  speaker  at  Dem 
rally,  205;  335 

Craig.  James  B.,  323;  report  of  com- 
mittee oa  resolutions,  366 

Crane,  H.  M..356 

Creamer,  Thomas  J.,  senator,  Van- 
derbilt  supporter.  286 

Cross,  James  M.,  witness  senate  com- 
mittee on  Erie.  280 

Crowley,  Richard,  at  Chicago,  310 

Culver,  E.  D.,  307 

Culver,  James  W.,  307 

Curtin,  Gov.,  named  for  Vice-Pres. , 
310;  317 

Curtis,  George  William,  editor  Pvi- 
?iam*8  Magazine  and  Harpers 
Weekly,  life,  147;  withdraws  name, 
148;  delegate  to  constitutional  con- 
vention, 213;  champions  woman 
suffrage,  237;  proposes  adjournment, 
247;  elector,  355;  see  also  Harper's 
Weekly 

Cnrtiss,  F.  D.,  167 

Cushman,  Don  Alonza,  Republican 
alderman,  143 

Daily  Courier  (Buffalo),  lands  resolu- 
tions of  Albany  Convention,  54; 
argues  for  the  Radicals.  61;  opinion 
of  Fenton,  Alvord  and  Bruce.  94 

Daily  Cmrier  and  Union  (Syracuse), 
explains  Greeley's  methods,  79; 
attitude  on  coup  d'  etat,  109;   hos- 


tility to  Weed,  130;  annoys  Albany 
Evening  Journal.  203 

Daily  Democrat  (Rochester),  defends 
Sen.  Humphrey  and  J.  M.  Ham- 
mond, 203;  on  Chicago  Convention, 
id  8 

Dai  y  Journal  (Ogdensbnrg)  questions 
sincerity  of  Democrats,  75;  recog- 
nizes *'  will  of  the  people,"  94;  sat- 
isfied with  Hulburd's  nomination, 
170 

Daily  Journal  (Syracuse),  rejoices  over 
passing  of  Albany  Regency.  109; 
blames  Horace  Greeley  for  Rep.  de- 
feat. 209 

Daily  Observer  (Utica),  consoles  the 
Unionist  convention,  61;  typical 
Dem.  opinion.  320-1 

Daily  Republican  (Binghamton), 
classes  itself  as  "  advanced,"  319 

Daily  Standard  (Syracuse)  attacks  Slo- 
cum,  .r>2;  praises  Alvord   94 

Daily  Union  and  Advertiser  (Roches- 
ter), attributes  Democratic  defeat 
to  lack  of  organization,  79;  sees 
tk  Ring"  victory,  171 

Daly,  Charles  P.,  member  judiciary 
committee.  215;  gives  historical 
resume^  217-18;  testifies  before 
Cong,  com.,  397 

Dana,  Charles  A.,  345;  see  also  Sun 

Danforth,  George  F. ,  judge  of  court 
of  appeals.  1878,  224 

Danton,  Isaac,  93 

Davis,  Emerson  E.,  323 

Davis,  J.  C.  Bancroft,  Erie  directory, 
280;  gives  leading  evidence,  281; 
fined,  297;  352 

Davis,  Noah,  life,  146;  odds  in  favor 
of,  148;  in  lead  on  first  ballot,  152 

Dayton.  Lewis  P..  on  committee  to  in- 
vestigate Glenn's  charges,  286 

Decker,  James  D  ,  323 

De  La  Matvr,  Gilbert,  nominated 
State  prison  inspector,  166;  de- 
feated, 208 

Delavan.  E.  C,  letter  from  Homer  A. 

<    Nelson.  206 

Demers,  George  W. ,  nominates  Gris- 
wold.  354;  elector,  355 

Deming,  Colonel,  Cooper  Union,  1868, 
379 

Democrats,  retain  strength  in  State 
through  foreign  element:  25;  evi- 
dence  of  strength,  26;   control   in 


430 


INDEX 


[430 


1863,  26:  chief  source  of  power  in 
Tammany's  hold  over  baser  ele- 
ments, 36;  State  Convention  charges 
Depew  with  fraud,  42;  New  York 
State  ticket  for  1864,  44;  Albany 
Convention  of  1865  develops  change 
of  policy,  48;  praises  party's  his- 
tory, 50;  platform,  50;  Union  jour- 
nals accuse  party  of  dodging  issues, 
51;  N.  Y.  State  ticket  for  I860,  53; 
Ogdensburg  Daily  Journal  comments 
on  resolutions,  54;  all  Democrat 
papers  except  News  endorse  platform 
and  candidates.  55;  classed  as  War 
Democrats  and  Copperheads,  89; 
Convention  of  1866  opens  in  Tweed le 
Hall  Albany.  Sept.  11,  99;  called 
to  order  by  Peter  Cagrger,  9i);  rival 
delegations  pacified,  100;  candidates, 
100;  determination  to  nominate 
Hoffman.  101;  coup  d'  Hat  of  San- 
ford  Church,  102;  editorial  com- 
ments on  coup  d'  etat,  108;  new 
State  committee,  107;  platform,  109- 
110;  editorial  comments  on  plat- 
form, 111-14;  win  in  New  York, 
1866;  reason  for  strength.  134;  sen- 
atorial caucus,  153;  State  Convention 
1867.  attendance  small.  171;  opinion 
of  World,  172;  Seymour  rules,  176; 
platform,  177  ;  nominations,  178; 
ticket,  179;  reaction  in  favor  of, 
182;  count  on  public  dissatisfaction, 
186 ;  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Iowa, 
give  maj.  to,  186;  editorial  com- 
ments on  maj..  187;  Sun  and  World 
warn,  191;  ratification  meeting,  191; 
hold  last  rally  at  Cooper  Union;  J. 
T.  Brady,  C.  S.  Thayer,  Voorhees, 
M.  Blair  and  S.  S.  Cox  chief  speak- 
ers, 205;  win  1867  elections,  207; 
results,  208,  note;  comments  of 
press,  209-10;  State  Convention  of 
1868  opens  March  11,  at  Tweedle 
Hall,  Albany,  321;  platform,  324; 
State  nominating  con.,  18(i8.  meets 
at  Tweedle  Hall,  Albany,  360;  con- 
test for  seats.  3»>1 ;  State  committee 
enlarged.  362;  pisiform,  366;  elec- 
toral ticket,  367;  press  comments  on 
con..  369-70;  central  committee 
sends  secret  circular,  393;  National 
Nominating  Convention  of  1868,  see 
New  York  Convention 
Demson,  C.  M.,  352 


Depew,  Chauncey  M. ,  secretary  of 
state,  makes  census  report,  41; 
Democratic  State  Convention  charges 
fraud,  42;  permanent  president  of 
Unionist  Convention,  56;  declines 
to  have  name  considered,  57;  facts 
about  declination,  60:  tendered  nom- 
ination by  both  factions,  61;  reports 
conversation  with  Van  Buren,  68; 
159;  present  at  Cooper  Union  rally, 
190;  ;>07-8;  at  Syracuse,  3)1;  3)3; 
nominates  Greeley  in  1868,  354; 
at  Syracuse,  1868.386 

Dewey,  William,  307 

Dewolf,  Delos,  107;  delegate  at  large, 
323;  elector-at-large,  367 

Diven,  Alexander  S. ,  breaks  Sabbath, 
276;  vice-president  of  Erie,  280; 
fined,  297;  witness  Hale  committee, 
299 

Dix,  John  A.,  hailed  by  some  a& 
future  leader,  69;  chosen  temporary 
chairman  National  Union  Conven- 
tion, 82;  90;  candidate  for  Governor, 
100;  name  hissed,  104;  aided  by 
Raymond,  104;  383;  408;  409 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  popular  vote, 
1860,  392 

Dodge,  General  (Iowa),  throws  dele- 
gation to  Colfax,  313 

Doolittle.  James  R. ,  president  of  Na- 
tional Union  Convention,  82 

Dorn,  Robert  G.,  of  Schenectady,  53 

Dow  ling,  Joseph,  323;  elector,  367 

Drew.  Daniel,  career  of;  comparison 
with  Vanderbilt,  268;  loans  Erie, 
$3.480  000,  upon  security,  269; 
transforms  Erie  convertible  bonds, 
270;  Vanderbilt  seeks  removal  of, 
273;  suspended,  injunctions  of  no 
effect,  273;  surprises  Vanderbilt, 
274;  breaks  Vanderbilt  corner,  275; 
276;  victory,  277;  situation  very 
favorable  to.  277;  testimony,  281, 
282;  slips  into  N.  Y.  C,  294;  share 
in  settlement,  296:  not  punished, 
297;  witness  Hale  committee,  testi- 
mony. 299 

Drver,  William  C,  elector,  367 

Duell.  R.  Holland,  307 

Dutcher,  S.  B..  356 

Dwight,  Jeremiah  W. ,  307 

Dwight,  Theodore  W. ,  delegate  to  con- 
stitutional convention.  213;  member 
judiciary  committee,  215;  353,  note 


43i] 


INDEX 


431 


Earl.  Robert,  Judge  of  Court  of  Ap- 
peals, 224;  pres.  1868  Dem.  con  ,  362 

Eastman.  H.,  166 

Eaton,  Dorman  B.,  candidate  for  cor- 
poration counsel,  40-5 

Editorial  comment,  371 

Edwards,  Lewis  A.,  elector.  367 

Edwards,  William  G. .  witness  senate 
committee  on  Erie  280 

Eld  ridge,  John  S.,  pres.  Erie  R.  R., 
271;  fails  to  appear  as  witness,  281; 
appointment  with  Gould,  290;  Bos- 
ton interests,  296;  lined,  297;  per- 
sonal account.  299 

Elections  for  State  officers  in  other 
States,  206 

Endres,  Isaac  L.,  93,  167.  307 

English,  Governor,  spoken  of  for 
Bliiir's  place  on  ticket,  382 

Ericsson,  inventor  of  Monitor,  374 

Erie  Railroad,  relation  with  State 
politics;  expenses  of,  2o7;  borrows 
from  Drew,  269;  Drew's  roup  great- 
est Wall  Street  success,  270;  hostili- 
ties reopened  by  Vanderbih;  in- 
junction, 272 

Esseltvne,  Cornelius,  356 

Esterbrook.  W.  P.,  356 

Evarts,  William  M..  present  at  Cooper 
Union  rally,  190;  delegate  to  con- 
stitutional convention,  213;  member 
judiciary  committee,  215;  defends 
majority  report,  219-22;  remarks 
effect  of  growth  of  New  York  City 
on  probate  cases,  230;  objects  to 
veto  change,  243 

Evening  Journal  (Albany),  states  six 
points  settled  by  1865  elections,  78; 
attacks  Johnson,  97;  unrestrained 
enthusiasm  of,  320;  sums  up  issues, 
18i>8,  388 

Evening  Post,  complacent,  55;  gives 
reasons  for  inactivity  of  campaign, 
65;  advice  to  southerners,  66; 
Chicago  platform  not  so  broad  as 
desired  by,  316:  advocates  Chase. 
325;  opinion  of  Blair.  3-7;  reassured 
at  to  currency ,  37-1 ;  attacks  Hoffman 
for  connection  with  Tweed.  377;  de- 
nounces election  frauds,  401 

Ewing.  Thomas  (General',  spoken  of 
for  Blair's  place  on  ticket.  382 

Excise  Law  passed.  April  14,  1866; 
enforcement  helps  Fenton,  123; 
Tribune  repudiates  Radical  resolu- 


tion, 185;  Harper's  Weekly  sum- 
marizes report  of  Police  Board,  185; 
Tribune  fosters  movement;  mass 
meeting  at  Cooper  Union,  204;  chief 
interest  in  campaign.  209 

Executive,  three  committees  report, 
211;  Fenton' s  suggestions,  241-2; 
radical  change  in  veto  power  sug- 
gested. 243;  existing  veto  power  re- 
tained. 243 

Express  (Buffalo),  comments  on  Dem- 
ocratic Convention  of  1865,  54;  re- 
verts to  infancy,  65;  expresses  con- 
tempt, 182;  sincere  endorsement  of 
Colfax,  318 
;  Fargo,  William  G.,  108;  179;  elector, 
367 

Fairman,  Charles  G.,  93 
j  Farragut,    Admiral,    refuses   nomina- 
tion. 330 

Farrington,  Ezra,  93 

Faulkner,  Lester  B..  324 
,  Fay.  John  D..  nominated  canal  com- 
missioner, 179:  elected,  L08 
1  Fenian  agitation,  origin,  footnote;  fills 
papers;  Tribune  endeavors  to  influ- 
ence vote,  121;  attitude  of  Presi- 
dent, 122 

Fenton,  Reuben  E. ,  Governor  by  less 
than  9000  in  1 864,  26;  rise,  backed  by 
radical  faction,  breaks  Weed's  power, 
27;  attempts  to  allay  unrest  over  de- 
crease in  canal  revenue.  39:  of  Chau- 
tauqua,  44;  causes  downfall  of  Sey- 
mour, 44;  receives  369.557  votes  for 
Gov.,  45;  92:  elected  over  Hoffman, 
133;  attitude  in  senatorial  cam- 
paign, 149;  friends  of  Alvord  and 
Bruce  wish  revenge  on.  150;  Conk- 
ling  scores  point  on,  159;  last  stand 
of  Vanderbilt  in  executive  cham- 
ber, 293;  opposition  to  candidacy  of, 
306;  named  for  vice-presidency,  308, 
310;  312;  third  for  Vice-pres  ,  313, 
317;  363;  356;  407;  trusted,  mal- 
administration. 410;  411;  adminis- 
tration would  not  be  tolerated  to- 
-day, 412;  goes  to  Senate  but  his 
State  machine  broken.  412 

Ferdon,  ex-Senator,  of  Rorkland.  161 

Ferris,  Congressman  (Rad. ),  16th 
dist  .  137 

Ferry  (Const.  Convent..  1867),  pro- 
poses amendmentto  judiciary  article, 
216 


432 


INDEX 


[432 


Field,  Benjamin.  80S;  at  Syracuse,  351 

Field,  David  Dudley,  Gould's  coun- 
sel, 284 

Fields,  Congressman  (Rad.),  19th 
dist.,  1S7 

Fields,  Thomas  C,  Greeley's  in- 
formant, 299 

Finch,  Francis  M. ,  judge  of  Court  of 
Appeals,  224 

Fish,  Henry  H..  107 

Fisher,  John,  807 

Fisk,  James,  Jr..  career  of,  271-2; 
seizes  bonds,  276;  281;  predicts 
further  trouble,  295;  receives  with 
Gould  the  Erie.  296;  not  punished, 
297;  witness  Hale  committee,  299 

Fithian,  Freeman  J.,  joint  director 
with  T.  Murphy,  of  reorganization 
committee,  304 

Flager,  Thomas  T. ,  delegate  to  con- 
stitutional convention,  213 

Flanders,  Francis  D.,  elector,  367 

Floyd-Jones,  David  R  ,  of  Queens. 
44;  contest  with  Nelson  over  secre- 
tary of  stateship,  17b 

Folger,  Charles  J.,  temporary  chair- 
man of  Unionist  convention,  56;  59; 
Rep.  candidate  for  Senator,  145; 
withdraws  name,  148;  mentioned  to 
succeed  Martindale,  161;  delegate 
to  constitutional  convention,  213; 
member  judiciary  committee,  215; 
judge  of  Court  of  Appeals.  224;  231 ; 
objects  to  veto  change,  243;  sum- 
marizes work  of  constitutional  con- 
vention. 248;  at  Chicago  conven- 
tion, 310 

Follett,  D.  L.,  107 

Forrest,  David  P. ,  of  Schenectady,  4A 

Forrest,  Nathan  B. ,  380 

Fort,  B.  G  ,  356 

Fort  Taylor,  headquarters  of  the  Erie 
exiles,  278 

Fourteenth  Amendment,  has  inception 
in  report  by  Stevens,  82 

Fowler.  John  S..  307 

Fowler,  W.  A.,  179.  368 

Fox,  George  L. ,  elector.  367 

Fox,  John,  defeats  Greeley,  136 

Francis.  John  M..  delegate  to  con- 
stitutional convention,  213 

Francis,  Thayer,  editor  Troy  Times; 
at  Syracuse,  351 

Frank,  August,  named  for  lieut.-gov. , 
354 


Franklin,  Morris,  letter  from,  102 

Frear,  Alexander,  on  committee  to 
investigate  Glenn's  charges,  2S6; 
demands  investigation,  2V7;  talks 
with  Glenn.  288;  testimony.  289; 
unacquainted  with  Lewis,  2:;0;  re- 
quest to  be  dismissed  from  commit- 
tee denied,  l91 

Freedman's  Bureau,  Johnson  vetoes 
bill  to  enlarge  powers  of.  81 

Fremont,  J.  C.  (General).  State  rati- 
fication meeting,  1868,  379 

Frost,  Calvin,  presents  resolution  in 
memory  of  Peter  Cagger,  3l>3 

Furro,  Joshua,  Jr.,  State  committee, 
356 

Gale,  Moses  D.,  commended,  3^8 

Gallagher,  Frank  B. ,  nominated  for 
inspector  of  State  prisons,  10b 

Ganson.  John,  candidate  for  Court  of 
Appeals,  179 

Garritt,  S.  B.,  167 

Garvin,  Judge,  360 

Gates,  Theodore  B  ,  proposed  for  State 
treasurer.  162;  nominated  for  treas- 
urer, 166-7;  defeated.  1.08;  reports  on 
permanent  organization.  18>  8,  353 

Genet,  Henry  VV.,  amends  Senator 
Pierce's  motion.  280 

Gerry,  Elbridge  T. ,  delegate  to  con- 
stitutional convention,  213 

Gibbons,  Abby  Hopper,  woman's  suf- 
frage, 337,  note 

Gilbert,  Judge,  issues  injunction  re- 
straining all  parties  to  Erie  litiga- 
gation,  277;  passed  out  of  the  fray, 
278 

Gillis,  William,  307 

Gleason,  W.  H.,  93;  admits  irregu- 
larities. I(i4 

Glenn.  Elijah  M.  K.,  assemblyman, 
makes  charges,  286;  names  Frear  as 
person  who  attempted  to  bribe  him, 
testimony  ineffective,  287;  story  of 
the  attempt  to  bribe  him.  288:  con- 
tradicts sworn  statement  of  Frear 
and  Lewis,  289;  charges  found  to  be 
unjustified.  291 

Glowack,  Henry  J.,  361 

Godard,  Charles  W.,  Rep.  State  cen- 
tral com.,  93;  166;  at  Syracuse,  851 

Goodrich.  Milo.  presents  minority  re- 
port of  judiciary  committee,  215; 
minority  report,  226 


433] 


INDEX 


433 


Goodsell,  J.  Piatt,  cand.  for  State 
engineer,  Union  ticket,  53;  charges 
unearthed  against,  75 

Goodyear,  Charles,  del.  to  Dem.  Nat. 
con.,  323 

Gould,  Jay,  prominent  figure,  268; 
career  of,  271;  276;  281;  astounded, 
283:  goes  to  Albany,  arrested,  284; 
goes  to  N.  Y.  with  Sheriff  O'Brien; 
returns  to  Albany  with  Oliver.  285; 
fails  to  report  before  Judge  Barrett, 
286;  reports  on  the  size  of  his  bribes, 
292;  appearances  against,  292;  un- 
provided for,  denounces  settlement, 
295;  receives  the  Erie.  296;  not  pun- 
ished, 297;  methods,  298;  witness 
Hale  committee,  testimony,  299;  300 

Gould,  John  Stanton,  245,  note 

Graham,  James  H.,  elector,  355 

Graham,  Senator,  has  itching  palm, 
301 

Grant.  Ulysses  S. ,  nominated  for  Pres. 
by  John  A.  Logan,  312;  nomina- 
tion foregone  conclusion,  314;  866; 
opinion  of  Herald  on.  371;  why 
people  would  vote  for,  378;  elec- 
toral vote,  1868,  S92;  Evening  Post 
comments  on  election  of,  402:  411 

Graves,  Const.  Convent,  of  1868,  pro- 
poses court  of  eight.  218 

Gray,  judge  of  Court  of  Appeals,  224 

Greeley,  Horace,  rise  of  feud  with 
Thurlow  Weed,  24;  44;  appears  in- 
different to  nominations,  59;  col- 
lides with  Raymond,  62;  interpre- 
tation of  Unionist  victory,  77; 
leader  Syracuse  (Rep.)  convention, 
92;  questions  citizens,  115;  opposes 
Beecher,  120;  announces  candidacy; 
defeated  by  Fox,  144,  note;  posi- 
tion in  Senatorial  race,  147-S; 
159;  editorial  on  silence,  180;  warns 
New  York  Republicans,  187;  pres- 
ent at  Cooper  Union  rally,  190; 
delegate  to  constitutional  conven- 
tion, 213;  presents  suffrage  report, 
233;  suggests  fifteen  districts,  239; 
suggests  no  pay  for  senators.  241; 
impatient  at  irregular  attendance, 
259;  lets  out  feelings  by  biting  re- 
marks in  Tribune,  259-60,  note; 
witness  Hale  committee,  298;  testi- 
mony on  Caldwell,  300;  address  to 
convention,  308;  opinion  of  Chicago 
convention,  315;  reviews  Seymour's 


past,  348;  candidate  for  Gov.,  352; 
represented  by  J.  R.  Young,  351; 
named  for  Gov.,  354;  attempt  to 
substitute  for  Roberts,  355;  lauds 
Griswold,  357;  359;  thinks  Sey- 
mour's case  homeless,  380;  Repub- 
licans take  advice  of,  378:  directs 
attention  to  election  frauds,  384; 
replies  to  Hoffman's  proclamation, 
385;  condols  with  Seymour,  402; 
407;  disgust  with,  410;  still  a  power 
in  party,  413;  see  also  Tribune 

Greeley,  Mrs.  Horace,  woman's  suf- 
frage, 337,  note 

Green,  Andrew  H.,  chair,  com.  on 
per.  organization  Dem.  con.  1866, 
104;  declines  mayoralty  nomination, 
404 

Green,  John  A.,  Dem.  State  com., 
1865,  53;  declines  nomination  for 
secretary  of  state,  178;  179;  dele- 
gate, 1868,  324;  opposes  Chase,  343; 
at  Albany,  360 

Green,  John  C,  nominates  Gen.  Mc- 
Kean,  166;  War  Dem.,  Cooper 
Union,  1868,  383 

Green,  W.  W. ,  editor  of  the  Syracuse 
Daily  Courier  and  Union.  349-50 

Grinnell,  Moses  H.,  delegate,  307; 
elector,  355 

Griswold,  John  A.,  represents  N.  Y. 
in  39th  Cong.,  45;  137;  candidate 
for  Gov.,  351;  nominated  for  Gov., 
354;  Times  points  out  experience  of, 
357;  connection  with  Monitor,  374, 
376;  for  liquor  men,  said  Herald, 
378;  State  ratification  meeting,  379; 
at  Syracuse,  1868,  386;  voted  for 
Niagara  ship  canal,  390;  vote  for 
Governor,  1868,  392;  411 

Groesbeck,  David,  Drew's  broker.  275; 
276;  280 

Grover,  Martin,  nominated  for  Court 
of  Appeals,  53;  179;  elected,  208 

Guthrie,  H.  H. ,  elector,  355 

Hackett,  John  K. ,  elected   recorder, 

,  135 

Hale,  Matthew,  member  judiciary 
committee,  215 ;  amendment  re- 
jected, 2ii2;  proposes  Supreme  Court 
of  12  judges,  227;  against  separate 
submission,  258;  evidence  of  his 
committee  does  not  bear  out  charge 
that  Fenton's  signature  was  bought, 


434 


INDEX 


[434 


294 ;  senate  commitee  to  investigate 
legislative  corruption,  298;  at  Syra- 
cuse, 351;  352;  refuses  to  serve,  353 
Hall,  A-  Oakey,  nominates  Hoffman 
for  Governor,  105 ;  convention 
speech,  175;  candidate  for  district 
attorney,  197;  323;  324;  seconds 
Hoffman's  nomination,  363;  399; 
nominated  for  mayor,  404;  elected, 
405;  Times  opinion  of,  405 
Hall,  Newman,  D.  D.,  address  Cooper 

Union  meeting,  204 

Halpine,  Gen.  Charles G. , register,  135 

Halstead,  Daniel  J.,  editor  of  Syracuse 

Daily   Courier  and    Union  explains 

choice  of  Barlow,  58 

Hamlin,  Hannibal,    named  for   vice- 

pres.,  310;  317 
Hammond,    Gov.     (S.     C),     escorts 

Seymour  to  chair,  317 
Hammond,  John,  of  Essex,  92;  nomi- 
nated canal  commissioner,  166;  ac- 
cused    of    wrongdoing,    203;     de- 
feated. 208 
Hampton,  Wade,  Radical,  380 
Hancock,  Winfield  Scott,  Presidential 
candidate,  330;  refuses  second  place, 
382 
Hand,  Augustus  C,  alternate,  323 
Happen,  use  of  word  in  Constitution, 

118 
Harcourt,  James,  contests  seat  with 

Marsh.  361 
Hardenburgh,  Jacob  H.,  defeated  by 

Bristol,  179;  323 
Hardly,  S.  G..  93 

Harper's  Weekly,  praises  Slocum,  71; 
comments  on  Hoffman,  116;  car- 
toons of  Thomas  Nast,  126,  note; 
tribute  to  Conkling,  156;  reviews 
Seymour's  past,  174;  underestimates 
Dem.  strength,  181;  takes  up  leg- 
islative corruption,  199,  note;  amuses 
itself  with  Argus,  257-8 
Harris,  Hamilton,  93;  166;  witness 
committee,  299;  chairman  Eep. 
State  central  com.,  303;  Gould's 
counsel,  286;  307-8;  at  Syracuse, 
351;  calls  convention  to  order,  352; 
356 
Harris,  Ira,  campaign  for  successor, 
144;  life,  145;  loses  supporters,  148; 
delegate  to  constitutional  conven- 
tion, 213;  offers  substitute  for  mi- 
nority report,  217 


Hart,  Emmanuel  B.,  delegate,  323; 
elector,  367 

Hart,  Roswell,  loses  election  to  Lewis 
Selye,  130;  352;  seconds  Griswold's 
nomination,  354 

Hasbrouck,  Robert  M.,  307 

Haskins,  John  B. ,  publishes  state- 
ment, 72;  chairman  committee*  on 
resolutions,  176 

Haskins,  James  P. ,  delegate,  324 

Hastings,  Hugh,  at  Chicago,  310 

Havemeyer,  William  F.,  War  Dem., 
Cooper  Union,  1868,  383 

Hawley,  ex-Gov.  (Conn.),  permanent 
pres.  Chicago  convention,  311 

Henderson,  Samuel,  describes  treat- 
ment in  Southern  prisons,  127 

Henderson,  W.  B.,  candidate  for 
clerk  of  Court  of  Appeals,  361 

Hendricks,  Thomas  A.,  Presidential 
candidate,  830;  343 

Herald,  The,  commends  Democracy 
on  recovery  of  temper,  54;  seconds 
Raymond's  position,  66;  admires 
Seymour's  convention  speech,  173- 
4;  attacks  probity  of  legislature, 
198;  criticizes  convention,  261;  con- 
tempt for  Church,  338-9;  admits 
Grant's  election,  381 

Herman,  G.  M.,  elected  supervisor, 
135 

Hicks,  Russell  F. ,  senator,  testimony, 
300;  301 

Hill,  D.  H.,  (Gen.),  380 

Hillhouse,  Thomas  H. ,  nominated  for 
comptroller,  53;  suggested  for  comp- 
troller, 166;  defeated,  208;  356 

Hiscock,  Frank,  State  Central  Com., 
1866,  93;  delegate,  307-8 

Hoffman,  JohnT.,  candidate  for  Gov- 
ernor, 100;  nominated  for  Governor, 
105;  speech  of  acceptance,  106;  op- 
posed to  legislative  commissions, 
115;  Times  accuses,  115;  Copperhead 
affiliations  reviewed  by  Tribune,  116; 
Harper's  Weekly  calls  him  "  candi- 
date of  grog-shops  "  ;  attack  of  Inde- 
pendent, 124;  tours  State  for  Demo- 
crats; comments  of  Tribune;  reply 
by  Argus,  129;  prominent  at  Dem. 
convention,  172;  Spencer  pledges 
support  to.  304;  360;  Morrissey' sop- 
position  aids,  361  ;  nominated  for 
Gov..  3^2;  370;  opening  speech, 
1868,    376;    strong    in   State,   384; 


435] 


INDEX 


435 


issues  proclamation,  385;  at  Roches- 
ter, 387;  vote  for  Governor,  1868, 
392;  carries  State,  393;  408;  411 

Hogsdrats,  Jacob  W. ,  307 

Holt,  Horatio  N.,  Rep.  State  Com., 
1866,  93;  1867,  166 

Hopkins,  Charles  H.,  Rep.  State 
Com.,  1866,93;  1867,  167 

Howell.  Daniel  C,  delegate,  324 

Howland,  Joseph,  of  Dutchess,  53 

Hoyle,  Timothy,  delegate,  323 

Hoyt,  Stephen  T.,  of  Steuben,  Rep. 
candidate  for  canal  commissioner, 
1866,  92;  resigns  senate,  137;  dele- 
gate, 307 

Hubbard,  John  F.,  Congressman 
(Rad.)  17th  dist.,  137 

Hulburd,  Calvin  T.,  candidate  for 
Senator,  147;  justified  by  Conkling. 
158;  nominated  for  comptroller, 
166;  declines  nomination,  167,  note; 
307-08 

Hull,  H.  H.,  Rep.  State  Com.,  356 

Humphrey,  I.  M.,  receives  presidency 
of  Albany  (Dem.)  Convention,  48; 
Congressman  (Dem.),  30th  dist., 
1866,  137. 

Humphrey,  Wolcott  J.,  arrested  for 
bribery,  197;  senate  committee  on 
Erie,  280 

Hunt,  Ward,  nominated  for  the  Court 
of  Appeals,  53 

Hunt,  Washington,  Dem.  elector-at- 
large,  44 

Hunter,  Arthur  W.,  53 

Hurd,  Duane  S.,  testifies  to  Barnum's 
unpopularity,  70 

H  usted,  James  W.,  356 

Hutchins,  Waldo,  Rep.  State  Com., 
93;  166;  delegate  to  constitutional 
convention,  213;  member  judiciary 
committee,  215;  at  Syracuse,  351; 
353;  356 

Ide,  Augustus,  368 

Ide,  Erastus,  179 

Independent,  The,  voices  Radical 
battle-cry,  115;  deserts  Chase,  326; 
assails  Dem.  candidates,  348;  pre- 
dicts Republican  victory,  372 

Innes,  George,  elector,  355 

Irving,  James,  assembly,  208 

Jackson,  James,  Jr.,  Dem.  State 
Com.,  179:  368 


Jackson,  Thomas  W.,  353,  note 
Jacobs,  claims  Voorhies  place,  321, 

note 
James,  Henry  R  ,  editor  Ogdensburg 

Daily  Journal,  54 
Jane,  Samuel,  elector,  355 
Jenkins,  J.  B.,  Rep.  State  Com.,  167 
Johnson,  Andrew,  overthrow  prepared 
by  Fen  ton's  machine,  27;  Congress 
at  cross  purposes  with,  45;  Recon- 
struction policy  substantially  Lin- 
coln's, 45-6;  denunciatory  declama- 
tion further  alienates  Cong.,  47; 
majority  of  party  conventions  back 
policy,  48;  Sumner,  Stevens  and 
Wade  learn  he  is  not  to  be  moved, 
61 ;  Radical  leaders  believe  he  favors 
immediate  enfranchisement  of  the 
negroes,  62;  recognized  by  Unionist 
convention  as  k  statesman  of  ability," 
63;  vetoes  bill  to  enlarge  powers 
of  Freedraan's  Bureau,  81;  makes 
White  House  speech  Feb.  22,  1866, 
81;  vetoes  Civil  Rights  Bill,  81; 
tours  country,  87;  at  St.  Louis  ac- 
cuses Unionists  of  planning  New 
Orleans  massacre,  87;  hurts  National 
Union  cause,  117;  attitude  on  Fen- 
ian movement,  122;  comments  of 
World  and  Universe,  122;  scapegoat 
of  Rep  oratory,  132;  policy  de- 
nounced by  Chicago  convention, 
813;  candidate  for  renomination, 
330;  applauded.  366;  talked  of  for 
Seymour's  place,  382;  enemies  and 
supporters,  407;  Democrats  support, 
408 
Johnson,  Reverdy,  Presidential  can- 
didate, 330 
Jones,  Edward,  delegate,  323;  elector, 

367 
Jones,  Fred  H.,  delegate,  307 
Jones,  Patrick  H.,  delegate,  307 
Judiciary,   dissatisfaction   over,   214; 
Court  of  Appeals  receives  most  ser- 
ious attention,  215;  composition  of 
committee,    215,    note;    protracted 
debate  begins,  216;   tenure  during 
good  behavior  rejected,  222;  motion 
for  re-election  carries,  223;  disposi- 
tion of  cases  pending  in  Court  of 
Appeals,   225;  many   proposals  on 
Supreme  Court,  225 ;  3  departments 
suggested,  226;  age  limit  and  term 
fixed,   228;    proposed    changes  for 


43& 


INDEX 


[436 


county  courts,  229;  term  of  county 

court   judges,    229-30;    jury    trial 

provided  for  surrogates'  courts,  231; 

division  or  question  of  election  or 

appointment,  232 
Judson,  Edward  B.,  elector,  355 
Judson,  William  R.,  elector,  367 
Juliand,  Frederick,  Rep.  State  Com., 

1866,   93;    candidate  for  treasurer. 

161;  runs  for  treasurer,  167 

Kelly,  John,  calls  for  loan  for  Tam- 
many Hall,  200;  declines  mayoralty 
nomination,  404 

Kelly,  Richard,  Rep.  nominee  for  city 
comptroller,  141 

Kelly,  William  E.,  of  Dutchess,  44 

Kelsey,  Congressman  (Rad. ),  137 

Kennedy,  John  A. ,  present  at  Cooper 
Union  rally,  190 

Kenney,  W.  H.  M.,  166 

Kernan,  Francis,  conciliatory  speech 
of,  105;  108;  delegate  to  constitu- 
tional convention,  213;  member 
of  judiciary  committee,  215;  323; 
324;  335 

Kerr,  M.  C,  and  L.  W.  Ross  present 
Minority  Cong,  report,  399 

Ketchum,  J.  H.,  137;  166;  proposes  to 
abolish  justice  of  sessions,  230,  note 

Kilpatrick,  General,  Cooper  Union, 
1868,  379 

Kimball,  J.  W.,  of  Franklin,  188;  at 
Syracuse,  351 

King,  A.  H.,93 

King,  H.  J.,  166 

King,  Preston,  of  Ogdensburg,  44; 
colleague  and  friend  of  Johnson, 
59;  made  Collector  of  the  Port  of 
New  York,  60;  jumps  from  ferry- 
boat, 60 

King,  Rufus  H.,  307 

King,  William,  receives  $2,000  from 
Gould,  299 

Kingsley,  Lewis,  307 

Kingsley,  Nathan,  head  of  Radical 
delegation,  305 

Kinsley,  L. ,  356 

Knapp,  Moore  R  ,  179 

Laffin,T.  L.,  53 

Laflin,  F.  D.,  Dem.  State  Com.,  1866, 

107;  137 
Landon,  Judson  S. ,  proposes  abolition 

of  Court  of  Appeals,  227 


Lane,  Director  (Erie),  fined,  297 

Lanning,  Albert  P.,  53;  108;  sides 
with  Nelson,  179;  aspires  to  lieut.- 
governorship,  861;  named  for  Gov. , 
363;  364 

Lanning,  Robert,  alternate,  323 

Lansing,  Edward,  representative  Sol- 
diers' Organization,  355 

Lapham,  Elbridge  G.,  introduces 
motion,  235 

Lapham,  Gerome,  166 

Lasher,  James  D. ,  on  committee  to 
investigate  Glenn's  charges,  286 

Lawrence,  Major-General,  suggested 
to  succeed  Barlow;  conduct  at  Fort 
Columbus,  161 

Lawrence,  Darius  W.,  323 

Lawrence,  E.  A,,  offers  amendment 
on  bond  taxation,  1 76 

Lawrence,  Hudson,  nominated  for 
secretary  of  state,  166 

Law,  George,  alternate,  323 

Lawson,  John  D.,  307 

Leavenworth.  General,  at  Syracuse, 
'67,  159 

Lee,  Charles  H.,  324 

Legislature,  large  district  plan  pro- 
posed, 239 ;  Mr.  Schoonmaker's 
plan,  239;  increase  in  number  of  as- 
semblymen suggested;  salary  fixed, 
240 

Lewis,  Joseph  L. ,  324 

Lewis,  Mark  M.,  lobbyist,  2S7;  talks 
with  Glenn,  288;  testimony,  289; 
interested  in  Watervliet  health  bill, 
290 

Lieber,  Francis,  letter  from  Sumner, 
footnote,  59 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  carries  Slate  by 
less  than  7000  in  1864,  26;  majority 
in  N.  Y.  slight,  45;  137;  N.  Y. 
majority  in  1860,  392;  popular  vote 
I860,  1864,  392 

Lincoln,  Charles  Z. ,  comment  on  judi- 
ciary committee,  215;  comment  on 
Evarts  address,  222;  on  powers  of 
legislature,  254 

Liquor  traffic,  its  relation  to  politics, 
35 

Little,  James  D.,  361 

Livingston,  E.  V.,  of  Lewis,  167; 
307;  356 

Locke,  D.  R.,  see  also  Nasby,  P.  V.. 
117 

Loew,  Charles  E. ,  323;  324;  elector,  367 


437] 


INDEX 


437 


Logan,  John  A.,  nominates  Grant,  312 

Loomis,  Benjamin  N. ,  elector,  367 

Lord,  Jarvis,  of  Monroe,  44 

Lounsberry,  William,  361 

Low,  H.  K.,  307;  351;  356 

Loyal    League,  meets    in    Syracuse, 

Sent.  5,  1866,  footnote,  92 
Luddington,  urges  Beach's  selection, 

364 
Luke,  Henry  C,  356 
Lyon,  Charles  L.,  324 
Lyon,  John,  93;  166 

McAlpine,  William  T.,  War  Dem., 
Cooper  Union,  1868,  383 

McCarthy,  Dennis,  Congressman 
(Rad.),  23rd  dist.,  137 

McClellan.  Gen.  George  B.,  Lincoln's 
majority  over,  slight  in  N.  Y.,  45; 
candidate  for  Pres.,  830;  popular 
vote,  1864,  392 

McClosky,  Felix,  Albany,  1866,  103 

McClure,  A.  K.,  characterizes  Conk- 
ling,  157 

McConihe,  Isaac,  368 

McCook,  Gen.,  calls  for  use  of  House 
rules,  Dem.  Nat.  Con.,  335;  op- 
posed to  Chase,  343;  manipulations 
of,  348 

McCool,  candidate  for  register,  1866, 
loses  to  Halpine,  135 

McCoombs,  Isaac,  Jr.,  179 

McCue,  Alexander,  32'"*;  corporation 
counsel,  365 

McCunn,  John  (Judge),  testifies  be- 
fore Cong.  com. ,  398 

McDonald,  Angus,  244,  note 

McDowell,  John,  93 

McGuire,  Jeremiah,  324 

McKean,  John  B.,  defeated,  208;  can- 
didate for  secretary  of  state,  161; 
nominated  unanimously  for  secre- 
tary of  state,  166;  State  ratification 
meeting,  1868,  379 

McKeon,  John,  protests  against  Dem. 
platform,  176;  organizes  party,  196 

McKinney,  William  H.,  93 

McLean,  George  W.,  alternate,  323    , 

McLean,  James,  elector,  367 

McLean,  Washington,  proprietor  Cin- 
cinnati Enquirer;  letter  from  Pendle- 
ton, 346;  hurries  to  Washington, 
381 ;  was  thought  to  have  inspired 
World  to  demand  change  in  Dem. 
ticket.  382 


McMurray,  William,  179 

McNeil,  David  B..  of  Clinton,  44; 
nominated  State  prisons  inspector, 
367-8;  vote  for  State  prison  in- 
spector, 1868,  392 

McNutt,  Andrew  J.,  of  Allegany,  53 

McQuade,  James,  aspires  to  lieut.- 
governorship,  361;  elector.  367 

Madden,  Edward  M. ,  names  Conkling 

{resident  of  convention,  159;  166; 
etter  from  Van  Wyck.  352;  353 

Magone,  Daniel,  Jr.,  nominates  W.  J. 
Averill,  363 

Maine,  Rep.  majority  in  1866;  Cham- 
berlain elected,  132 

Marble,  Manton,  editor  New  York 
World,  72 

Marsh,  Isaac  M.,  wins  seat  contest 
with  Harcourt,  361 

Marshall,  D.  D.  T.,  nominates  F.  C. 
Barlow,  166 

Marshall,  William,  323 

Martin,  J.  G.,  speaks  at  Dem.  ratifi- 
cation meeting,  191 

Martin,  judge  of  Court  of  Appeals, 
224 

Marvin,  Congressman  (Rad.),  18th 
dist.,  137 

Martindale,  Gen.  John  H.,  of  Mon- 
roe. 53;  nominated  attorney -gen- 
eral,  57 

Mason,  Charles,  nominated  for  Court 
of  Appeals,  166;  defeated,  208 

Masten,  Joseph  G.,  member  judiciary 
committee,  215 

Mattice,  Manly  B. ,  elector,  H67 

Mattoon,  Abner  C  ,  appointed  to 
senate  committee  to  investigate 
Erie,  280;  for  sale,  281;  testimony, 
282:  visits  Jersey  City,  283;  sug- 
gests need  of  Erie  representative  at 
Albany,  284;  votes  for  Erie,  293; 
witness  Hale  committee,  299;  noth- 
ing definite  discovered  relative  to 
charges  against.  301 

Mattoon,  John  H. ,  son  of  Senator 
Mattoon,  280;  witness  Hale  com- 
mittee, 299 

Memphis  massacre,  126 

Merrill,  William  H.,  93;  167 

Merritt.  Benjamin,  (General)  at  Syra- 
cuse. 351;  356 

Merritt,  Edwin  A.,  93;  166;  presents 
report  of  com.  on  legislative  organi- 
zation, 239,  356 


438 


INDEX 


U38 


Merwin,  offers  amendment  to  jury 
section  of  Bill  of  Rights,  238 

Metropolitan  Board  of  Excise  v.  John 
Harris  et  a/.,  123-4 

Michigan  Southern  &  Northern  Indi- 
ana R.  R.,  agreement  with  Drew, 
272,  note 

Miller,  George  W.,  delegate,  324; 
nominates  Hoffman,  362 

Miller,  Ira  O.,  Rad.  State  Con.,  166; 
356 

Milliman,  Nathaniel,  candidate  for 
canal  commissioner,  367 

Mills,  Borden  H.,  307 

Mississippi  Convention,  refuses  to  ac- 
cede to  President's  suggestion  for  a 
qualified  suffrage,  48 

Morgan,  Edwin  D. ,  (Senator)  no 
orator,  128;  present  at  Cooper  Union 
rally;  makes  chief  address,  190 

Morgan,  General,  of  Ohio,  336 

Morning  Herald  (Utica),  characterizes 
Syracuse  Convention,  98;  says  1866 
(Dem.)  ticket  is  not  to  be  despised, 
109;  emphasizes  fairness  of  Conk- 
ling's  election,  157;  mouthpiece  of 
Conkling,  170-1 ;  outlook  not  roseate 
to,  319;  comments  on  N.  Y.  Con., 
349 

Morris,  Judge,  attacks  Tammany, 
363-4 

Morrissey,  John,  136;  323;  324;  votes 
for  Chase,  343;  leads  Brooklyn  del- 
egation, 360;  opposition  to  Hoff- 
man, 361 

Mozart  Hall,  dissensions  in  give  Tam- 
many opportunity  to  extend  con- 
trol, 26;  made  honorary  guests,  175; 
relation  to  Fernando  Wood,  196; 
candidates  for  charter  election, 
404-5 

Murphy,  Henry  C,  candidate  for  Gov- 
ernor, 100;  attended  by  toughs,  101; 
retires  in  favor  of  Hoffman,  101; 
elected  over  Hall  in  Dem.  caucus, 
153;  speaks  at  Dem.  ratification 
meeting,  191;  delegate  to  constitu- 
tional convention.  213;  delegate  at 
large,  323;  343;  career  of,  360;  with- 
draws name,  362;  364;  futility  of 
candidacy,  355;  tribute  of  Commer- 
cial Advertiser  and  World.  368 

Murphy,  James,  delegate,  323 

Murphy,  Thomas  J.,  head  of  Twenty- 
third  Street  party,  160;  joint  director 


with  F.  J.  Fithian  of  reorganization 
committee,  304;  at  Chicago,  310 
Myers,  Gustavus,    on    conditions    in 
New  York,  34 

Nasby,  Petroleum  V.,  letter  of,  foot- 
note, 76;  Swinging  round  the  cirkle, 
footnote,  117;  letters  of,  126 

Nast,  Thomas,  cartoons  of,  footnote, 
126 

Nation,  The,  comments  on  laissez-faire 
attitude  of  New  York,  30;  com- 
ments on  parade  of  discharged  sol- 
diers in  New  York  City,  31;  sug- 
gests method  of  settlement  between 
Greeley  and  Weed,  68;  character- 
izes the  combatants,  68-9;  on  dis- 
cussion over  happen,  118;  points 
out  incompetency  and  fraud,  195; 
expresses  disappointment  with  work 
of  convention,  261;  places  blame 
for  lack  of  success,  263;  comments 
on  naturalization  and  voting  frauds, 
394-5 

National  Intelligencer,  demands  change 
in  ticket,  381 

Naturalization  frauds  practiced,  394-5; 
methods,  395,  note;  Congressional 
investigation  into,  395;  Congres- 
sional committee  reports,  396;  part 
played  by  courts,  397;  testimony  of 
judges,  397-8 

Nauman,  cand.  for  coroner,  135 

Negro  suffrage,  see  Suffrage 

Nelson,  Homer  A.,  53;  temporary 
chairman  Saratoga  convention,  90; 
contest  with  Floyd- Jones  over  sec- 
retary of  stateship,  178;  nominated 
secretary  of  state,  179;  bids  for 
temperance  vote,  206;  elected,  208; 
delegate  to  constitutional  conven- 
tion, 213;  360 

Newman,  George  C,  356 

New  Orleans  massacre,  126 

Newton.  Lyman  M.,  356 

New  York  Central  R.  R.,  Vanderbilt 
takes  over  allied  lines,  270 

New  York  City,  cosmopolitan  ele- 
ments in,  30;  tenement  congestion, 
30;  position  in  1865,  30;  war  record 
of,  30;  sanitary  conditions  bad;  re- 
form instituted  by  Citizens  com- 
mittee, 31;  large  numbers  of  dis- 
charged soldiers  aggravate  conges- 
tion, 31;  death  rate  in  1863  greatest 


439] 


INDEX 


439 


among  large  cities  of  world.  32; 
life  in  Fisher's  Alley.  33;  k*  Ring" 
development  due  to  low  status  of 
life,  33;  illiteracy  of  inspectors  and 
health  wardens,  34;  in  grasp  of 
Tweed  Ring,  44;  charter  electipn 
held  Dec.  4,  140;  campaign  dull, 
141;  charter  elections,  papers  take 
little  interest,  142;  charter  elections 
of  1868,  404;  Hall  and  Conkling 
nominated  for  mayor,  404 

New  York  Convention  (1868),  Chase 
appears  best  candidate,  325;  Presi- 
dential candidates,  330;  other  Pres. 
candidates,  331,  note;  delegates' 
attitude  on  leading  candidates;  Sey- 
mour disturbing  element,  332;  meets 
in  new  Tammany  Wigwam,  334; 
Seymour,  pres.;  report  of  com.  on 
permanent  organization,  336;  plat- 
form, 339-40;  comments  of  up-State 
press,  348 

New  York  State,  changed  situation 
after  Civil  War,  26;  conditions  in 
1865  show  its  strength  and  resources, 
29;  war  record  of,  29;  $43,270,337.47 
disbursed  in  bounties,  29-30;  indus- 
trially strong.  35;  depression  in  ship- 
ping, 35-36;  agriculture  in  flourish- 
ing condition  throughout  War,  36- 
37;  comptroller's  report  for  1865, 
37-39;  canal  receipts  and  disburse- 
ments, 38;  condition  of  railroads  in 
1865,  39;  report  of  the  superin- 
tendent of  the  banking  department 
for  1865, 40;  change  in  banking  sys- 
tem, 39-40;  census  for  1865,  41; 
census  declared  fraudulent,  42;  in 
grasp  of  canal  ring,  44;  elections, 
party  tickets  for  1864,  footnote,  44; 
elections,  tickets  for  1865,  53;  elec- 
tions. Unionists  win  in  1865  by 
27,461  majority,  77;  elections,  edi- 
itorial  comments,  78-79;  elections, 
Republican  ticket,  92;  elections, 
comments  of  press,  138-40;  claim 
that  large  sums  of  money  were  used, 
139;  Senatorial  campaign  intense 
and  interesting,  147;  Senatorial  elec- 
tion caucus  assembles  Jan.  10,  1866; 
C.  F.  Folger,  chairman,  150;  elec- 
tions, '67;  little  interest  displayed; 
excise  question  prominent,  193; 
elections,  '67;  multiplicity  of  polit- 
ical organizations,  196;   elections  of 


"67;    State   editors'    opinions,   201; 

elections,      Democratic     landslide, 

207;  legislature,  Unionist's  control 

in     1865,   45;    legislature,    bribery 

charges,  197 
Nichols,  Asher  P.,  senate  committee 

to  investigate  legislative  corruption, 

298 
North,  Samuel,  179,  368 
Norton,  Michael,  323 
Notte,  Adolphe,  167 

O'Brien,  judge  of  Court  of  Appeals,  224 

O'Brien,  James,  agreement  as  sheriff 
with  Field,  284;  appoints  2000 
deputies,  399 

O' Gorman,  Richard,  Tammany  nom- 
inee for  corporation  counsel,  405 

Oliver,  James  A.,  special  officer  in 
charge  of  Gould,  285;  returns  to 
N.  Y.  without  Gould,  286 

Opdyke,  George,  delegate  to  constitu- 
tional convention,  213 

Osgood,  Vanderbilts's  son-in-law,  279 

Otis,  Horatio  N-,  secretary  of  Erie, 
280 

Ottendorfer,  Oswald,  323;  elector,  367 

Ottwell.  John  D.,  307 

Paige,  Alonzo  C. ,  delegate  to  constitu- 
tional convention,  213 

Palmer,  George  W.,  93;  167;  at  Syra- 
cuse, 351 

Palmer,  H.,  temporary  chairman 
Dem.  Con.  334 

Parker,  of  Cayuga,  Senatorial  election, 
151 

Parker,  Alton  B.,  judge  of  Court  of 
Appeals,  224 

Parker,  Amasa  J. ,  delegate  to  consti- 
tutional convention,  213;  member 
judiciary  committee,  215;  moves  to 
strike  out  section  on  commission, 
225;  favors  veto  change,  243 

Parker,  A.  X.,  of  St.  Lawrence,  353 

Parker,  John  L.,  at  Syracuse,  351 

Parker,  N.  Wilson,  179;  368 

Parks,  William  M.,  53;  108 

Parsons,  Senator,  absent  from  caucus, 
150 

Patrick,  Gen.  Marsena  R. ,  of  Ontario, 
53 

Payne,  Lewis  F.,  witness  Hale  com- 
mittee, 299;  harbor  master.  300 

Pendleton,  George  H.,  followers  op- 


440 


INDEX 


[440 


posed  to  Chase  and  Seymour,  328; 
Presidential  candidate,  330;  papers 
rake  up  past,  336;  letter  to  Wash- 
ington McLean  made  public,  346; 
hurries  to  Washington,  381 

Peckham,  Rufus  W  ,  Jr.,  judge  of 
Court  of  Appeals,  224 

Peckham,  Rufus  W.,  Sr.,  judge  of 
Court  of  Appeals,  224 

Pennsylvania,  War  record  of,  29 

Pentz,  George  B.,  elector,  367 

Perrin,  Edward  O.,  of  Kings,  53; 
candidate  for  clerk  of  Court  of  Ap- 
peals, 361;  unanimously  elected 
clerk  of  Court  of  Appeals,  368;  vote 
for  clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals, 
1868,  392 

Pettibone,  Stoughton,  elector,  355 

Peoples  State  Convention,  and  Re- 
publican State  Convention,  produce 
Union  ticket  in  1861,  25 

Philadelphia  Convention,  directed  by 
Seward,  Weed  and  Raymond,  83; 
Democrats  realize  necessity  of  con- 
ciliating Republicans,  83;  Fernando 
Wood  and  Vallandigham  asked  to 
withdraw,  83;  resolutions  on  em- 
phatic endorsement  of  Johnson's 
policy,  84 

Philadelphia  principle,  408 

Philbin,  Stephen,  War  Dem. ,  Cooper 
Union,  1868,  383 

Phillips,  Wendell,  oratorical  genius 
enlivens  campaign,  73 

Pierson,  Henry  R.,  Erie  directory, 
280 

Pierce,  James  F.,  introduces  motion 
in  N.  Y.  S.  senate  to  investigate 
Erie,  280;  senate  committee  on 
Erie.  280;  majority  report,  281;  re- 
ports electoral  ticket,  367 

Pierrepont,  Edwards,  withdraws  Dix's 
name,  105-6 ;  member  judiciary 
committee,  215;  secret  meeting  at 
his  house.  295;  War  Dem.,  Cooper 
Union,  1868,  chief  speaker,  383; 
384 

Piper,  Sherburn  B.,  324 

Pitts,  E.  L.,307 

Piatt,  Moses  R..  elector,  355;  356 

Pleasanton,  General,  Cooper  Union, 
1868.  379 

Pomeroy.  Congressman  (Rad. ),  137 

Pond,  proposes  court  often,  218 

Porter.  John  K.,  of  Albany,  53 


Porter,  Oliver,  elector,  367 

Post,  George  J. ,  356 

Potter,  Waldo  M.,  at  Syracuse,  351 

Powell,  Archibald  C. ,  nominated 
State  engineer,  166;  defeated,  208 

Pratt,  Daniel,  179 

Presidential  campaign,  Timet  predicts 
military  hero;  Grant  in  minds  of 
both  parties,  192 

Prince,  L.  Bradford,  307 

Prindle,  Elizur  H. ,  proposed  3  de- 
uartments,  227;  fixes  age  limit,  228 

Private  Miles  O'Reillv,  see  Halpine, 
C.  G. 

Prosser,  Erastus  S..  candidate  for 
treasurer,  167 

Prostitution,  amount  of  property  in- 
vested for  immoral  purposes;  cost 
to  City,  35 

Pruyn,  Robert  H.,  candidate  for  Gov- 
ernor, 100;  nominated  for  lieutenant- 
governor,  107;  influence  of  Hoff- 
man on,  131;  137;  Spencer  pledges 
support  to  Robert  H.  Pruyn,  304 

Radical  Convention,  held  at  Phila- 
delphia, Sept.  3, 1866;  comments  of 
the  press,  91,  note 

Radicals,  success  in  Maine  elections, 
101 

Ramsdell,  Homer,  fails  to  appear  as 
witness,  281 

Ramsey,  Joseph  H.,  constitutional 
conv.,  231:  3-52 

Randall,  H.  S.,360 

Ranney.  Luke,  assemblyman,  287; 
testimony.  290;  291 

Rapallo,  judge  of  Court  of  Appeals, 
224 

Rath  bun,  George,  244,  note 

Ray,  Henry,  assemblyman,  287;  in- 
volved in  testimony,  288;  testimony, 
290;  sensitiveness  about  bribery,  291 

Raymond,  Henry  J.,  editor  of  Times 
enters  Congress  in  1865,  27;  col- 
lision with  Greeley,  62;  consoles 
Democrats.  78;  Seward  takes  him 
to  see  President  with  a  purpose, 
83-4;  address  at  Philadelphia  con- 
vention causes  his  political  death, 
84-5;  removed  from  chairmanship 
of  Republican  national  committee, 
80;  declines  nomination  by  Conser- 
vative Republicans,  86;  Greeley 
comments   on   declination,    86;    no 


441] 


INDEX 


441 


sympathy  among  editorial  col- 
leagues, 86;  accused  of  having 
turned  Copperhead,  85;  letter  to 
Ransom  Balcom,  85-6;  90;  open  to 
conviction,  315;  argues  that  the 
country  needs  quiet,  377;  409;  in 
accord  with  party,  413;  tee  also 
Times 

Reeves,  Joseph,  307 

Reynolds,  Edwin  R.,  elector,  355 

Reynolds,  Gideon,  108 

Reconstruction,  live  theories  of,  4tt. 
note;  Times  approves  Congressional, 
184 

Republican  (Chicago),  attacks  Slocum, 

Republicans,  State  Convention,  pro- 
duces Union  ticket  with  Peoples 
State  convention,  25;  absorb  War 
Democrats,  adopt  name  Union,  25; 
referred  to  as  Unionists  or  Union 
Republicans,  as  Radicals,  and  as 
Conservatives,  88-9;  Radicals  domi- 
nate party  till  18t>8,89;  term  Union 
dropped  1868,  89;  convention  of 
1866  opens  at  Syracuse  Sept.  5,  91 ; 
Charles  H.  Van  VVyck,  temporary 
chairman,  92;  Lyman  Tremaine 
permanent  president,  92;  conven- 
tion of  1866  demand  for  new  men, 
92-3;  State  central  committee,  note. 
93;  convention  of  1866  attitude  of 
up-State  editors,  94;  convention  of 
'66  platform,  95-6;  attitude  on  Re- 
construction, 96;  convention  of  '66 
editorial  comments,  97-8;  dissension 
in  ranks,  130;  Maine  and  Vermont 
give  large  majorities  to,  132;  win 
Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana  and 
Iowa.  132;  win  New  York  by,  133; 
Senatorial  caucus,  150-2;  rumors  of 
corruption.  153-4;  State  convention 
1867,  ticket,  166, note;  State  conven- 
tion,^; platform,  168;  comments  of 
the  press,  169-71;  attack  Dem..  184; 
rally  at  Cooper  Union,  189;  attempts 
to  counteract  Dem.  attacks,  200; 
denied,  202;  dissensions  among, 
202-3;  State  convention  of '68  rati- 
fying body;  meets  at  Syracuse,  303; 
an ti -Fen ton  feeling,  303;  contest 
between  City  factions,  303;  State 
convention  of  1868,  ratifying  body, 
303;  reorganization  committee  under 
Messrs.   Fithian  and  Murphy,  304; 


Van  Wyck  pres.,  306;  State  nom- 
inating convention  held  at  Syracuse. 
July  8,  1868;  ratifying  body,  351; 
Twenty-third  Street  organization 
asks  for  reorganization,  352;  Coch- 
rane pres.  con.,  353;  Griswold's 
nomination  unanimous;  3  candi- 
dates for  Lieut. -Gov. ;  Cornell  nom- 
ination unanimous,  354;  platform 
echo  of  Chicago,  356;  State  com- 
mittee, 356,  note:  press  comments, 
357-9;  appeal  to  Irish  and  Ger- 
mans, 1868,  380 

Richardson,  Gov.  (111.),  335 

Richmond,  Dean ,  favors  war,  25;  holds 
ascendency,  26;  53;  untimely  death 
of,  note,  101 

Richmond,  Henry  A.,  Dem.  State 
com.,  1866,  108;  179;  Dem.  dele- 
gate, 324;  368 

Richmond,  Van  Rensselaer,  nomi- 
nated canal  commissioner,  179; 
elected,  208 

Rider,  Ambrose  L.,  elector,  355 

Roberts.  Ellis  H.,  editor  Utica  Morn- 
ing Herald,  leads  Unionist  dele- 
gates, 57;  believes  Johnson  will 
stand  M  by  the  voice  of  the  people," 
78;  presents  Conkling's  name,  150; 
307-8;  contrasts  Rep.  and  Dem. 
conventions,  359;  gives  his  paper  a 
very  conservative  tone,  388;  see  also 
Morning  Herald  (Utica) 

Roberts,  Marshall  O.,  candidate  for 
Gov. ,  351 ;  elector  at  large,  355;  359 

Robertson,  H.  D.,  Rep.   State  com., 

1866,  93;   136;    Rep.    State  com., 

1867,  166;  307;  at  Syracuse,  1868. 
351 

Robinson,  Lucius,  nominated  for 
comptroller,  49;  esteemed  by  both 
parties,  52;  of  Chemung,  53;  136; 
161 

Rockwell,  William,  Rep.  Nat.  dele- 
gate, 1868,  307 

Rodgers,  Eli  W.,  Rep.  Nat.  delegate, 

1868,  307 

Root,  Samuel,  Rep.  State  com.,  1868, 

356 
Rosenberg,  Tammany  naturalizer,  398 
Ross,  Elmore  P.,   Dem    State   com., 

1865,  53;  179;  Dem.  Nat.  delegate, 

1868,  324;  368 
Ross.,  L.  W.,  and  M.  C.  Kerr  present 

minority  Cong.  com.  report,  399 


442 


INDEX 


[442 


Rowley,  William  C,  elector,  367 

Roy,  James,  elector,  367 

Ruger,  William  C,  chief  judge  of 
Court  of  Appeals,  224 

Rumsey,  David,  moves  to  retain  ex- 
isting veto,  243;  245,  note 

Russell,  Cornelius  A.,  Dem.  Nat. 
delegate,  1868,  323 

Sammons,  Simeon,  323 

Sanford,  George  H.,  179;  323;  368 

Saxe,  John  G.,  103 

Schell,  Augustus  E. ,  interest  in  Erie 
settlement,  295;  share  in  settlement, 
296;  323;  stands  by  Dem.  ticket, 
1868,  382 

Schenck,  weak  position  of,  204 

Schermerhorn,  Edmund  H.,  War 
Dem.,  Cooper  Union,  1868,  383 

Schermerhorn,  Isaac  M..  93 

Scheu,  Solomon,  nominated  State 
prison  inspector,  179;  elected,  208 

Schoonmaker,  Marius,  proposes  ten 
senatorial  districts,  239;  and  Messrs. 
Tappan  and  Champlain  presents 
minority  report,  243-4 

Schoecraft,  Matthew  J.,  elector,  367 

Schuetz,  Frederick,  elector,  355 

Schumaker  and  Cassidy  present  minor- 
ity suffrage  report,  234 

Schurz,  Carl,  temporary  chairman 
Chicago  convention,  311;  at  Syra- 
cuse, 1868,  385 

Scott,  George  B.,  179 

Searle,  Gideon,  188 

Seldon,  Henry  R.,  elector  at  large, 
355 

Selkrig,  nominates  Cornell  for  lieut.- 
gov.,  354 

Selye,  Lewis,  wins  election  over  Ros- 
well  Hart,  130;  137;  Radical  candi- 
date for  Congress,  389 

Sedgwick,  cand.  for  recorder,  135 

Sessions,  Walter  L. ,  252;  refuses  to 
serve,  353 

Seward,  William  H.,  regarded  as 
leader  of  conservative  Unionists,  27; 
leader  of  Johnson  faction,  59;  ad- 
dresses his  neighbors  in  Auburn,  73; 
victim  of  President's  attempt  to 
organize  new  party,  87-88;  accom- 
panies Johnson  against  his  will,  88; 
loss  of  influence,  128;  address  at 
Auburn,  1868,  390;  federal  patron- 
age, 378;  407;  grasp  nerveless,  409 


Sexton,  Seymour,  807 

Seymour,  Horatio,  defeats  Wadsworth 
for  Gov.,  1862,24;  cautious  advisor, 
25;  influence  on  increase,  26;  defeat 
desired,  44;  of  Oneida,  44;  receives 
361,264  votes,  45;  fails  to  receive 
presidency  of  Albany  convention, 
48;  admits  national  affairs  have  im- 
proved, 66;  Democratic  organs  sent 
to  divert  attention  from  Chicago 
platform,  72;  ends  campaign  at 
Seneca  Falls,  Nov.  5,  72;  prominent 
at  Dem.  convention;  struggle  with 
Hoffman,  172;  made  chairman  of 
convention  press  comments,  173; 
speaks  at  Dem.  ratification  meeting, 
191;  192;  speech  in  Dem.  Conven- 
tion, 322;  delegate  at  large,  323; 
Herald  and  Evening  Post  accuse, 
329;  pres.  Dem.  conv.,  336;  ad- 
dress, 837;  landslide  for,  341;  press 
comments  on  nomination,  344;  an- 
nounces that  any  change  must  in- 
clude him,  382;  ridiculed,  383; 
invades  West,  884;  electoral  vote, 
1868,  392;  World  praises,  403; 
411 

Shafer,  Senator,  103 

Shaler,  Alexander,  elected  supervisor, 
135 

Sharp,  George  H.,  807 

Sharpe,  G.  G.  (Colonel),  Cooper 
Union,  1868,  379 

Shepard,  James  G.,  elector,  367 

Sherman,  J.  W.,  Dem.  State  com., 
1366,  107 

Sherman,  John  (Senator),  5-20  bonds 
could  be  paid  in  greenbacks,  167; 
379 

Shirmer,  elected  coroner,  135 

Shotts,  Assemblyman  caucus  teller, 
151 

Sickles,  Daniel  E. ,  58;  delegate  at 
large,  306;  moves  unanimous  nomi- 
nation for  Colfax,  318;  Cooper 
Union,  1868,  379 

Sickles,  Henry  J.,  324 

Sigel,  Franz,  named  for  lieut.-gov., 
354 

Skidmore,  Director  (Erie),  lined,  297 

Sloan,  Samuel,  War  Dem.,  Cooper 
Union.  1868,  383 

Slocum,  Henry  W. .  nominated  for 
secretary  of  state,  49;    friends  scout 


443] 


INDEX 


443 


idea  of  his  accepting  Dem.  nomina- 
tion, 51;  of  Onondaga,  53;  Unionist 
journals  make  capital  out  of  his 
change  of  faith,  71;  Carroll  Smith 
gives  list  of  his  supporters,  71;  at- 
tacked freely  by  Syracuse  Daily 
Standard  and  Chicago  Republican, 
71;  endorsed  by  Sherman,  Dix, 
Sickles,  Cochrane  and  others,  75; 
candidate  for  Governor,  100;  retires 
in  favor  of  Hoffman.  101;  864-/>; 
365;  elector-at-large.  367 

Smith.  Charles  E.  (of  Albany),  nom- 
inates Ira  Harris,  151 

Smith  (of  Fulton)  proposes  amend- 
ment to  judiciary  article,  216 

Smith,  Carroll  E.,  editor  of  Syracuse 
Daily  Journal,  defends  Slocum,  52; 
confines  comments  to  State.  140;  349 

Smith.  E.  Dela field,  Thomas  Murphy 
and  A.  G.  Plumb  approve  list  of 
contestants.  304 

Smith,  Henry,  temporary  chairman, 
352 

Smith,  Lewis  E.,  com.  State  conven- 
tion, 1868,  353,  note 

Smith,  Orrin  W.,  361 

Smith,  Washington  J.,  withdraws  in 
favor  of  Frank  B.  Gallagher,  107-8 

Smythe,  Henry  A.,  proposed  impeach- 
ment of,  158 

Soldiers,  treatment  of  Union,  in  South- 
ern prisons,  127,  note 

Spencer,  Charles  S.,59;95;  96;  169; 
distributes  copies  of  Tribune;  as- 
sails Twenty-third  street  organiza- 
tion, 164;  nominates  Hudson  Law- 
rence, 166;  present  at  Cooper  Union 
rally,  190;  convention  speech,  304; 
307-8;  forces  admittance  of  South- 
ern votes,  311;  at  Syracuse,  351; 
objects  to  committee,  352;  moves 
for  informal  ballot,  354;  elector,  355 

Spriggs,  J.  T.,  53 

Stanton,  Elizabeth  Cady,  runs  for 
Congress,  136;  337.  note 

Stebbins,  Charles  W.,  323;  324 

Stebbins,  Henry  G.,  candidate  for 
speaker,  374;  War  Dem.,  Cooper 
Union,  1868,  383 

Steed  well,  E.  A.,  elector,  355 

Stevens,  Thaddeus,  controls  Pennsyl- 
vania Union  convention,  48;  leader 
of  Pennsylvania  Radicals,  81;  Even- 
ing Journal  predicts  overthrow,  203; 
disgust  with,  410 


Stewart,  Congressman,  (Conser. )  6th 
dist. ,  136 

Stewart,  Alexander  T..  elector,  355; 
War  Dem.,  Cooper  Union,  1868,  883 

Stewart,  Robert,  elector,  355 

Stewart,  Thomas  E. .  107 

Stewart,  William  R. ,  807 ;  reports 
electors-at-large,  355 

Stone,  Ruby  H. .  elector,  367 

Strong,  John  M.,  nominated  for  in- 
spector of  State  prisons,  name  with- 
drawn. 368 

Stuart,  Robert  L.,  War  Dem.,  Cooper 
Union,  1868,  383 

Sturtevant,  Alvin,  167 

Suffrage,  Pies.  Johnson,  favors  quali- 
fied negro  suffrage,  46;  north  takes 
attitude  of  Mississippi  convention  as 
indicative  of  Southern  sentiment.  48; 
public  sentiment  at  first  against 
negro,  note,  62;  woman's  ticket, 
1866.  136 ;  majority  report  by 
Greeley,  233;  qualifications,  234; 
minority  report  by  Cassidy  and  Shu- 
maker,  234;  registration  compulsory, 
235;  women  endeavor  to  advance 
cause,  236;  Wales  proposes  woman 
suffrage.  236,  note;  Curtis  champions 
woman' 8  cause,  237 ;  prejudices 
against  negroes  continues,  237;  negro 
suffrage  stumbling  block,  202 

Sumner.  Charles,  controls  Massachu- 
setts Union  convention,  48;  with 
Chase  visits  President.  62;  leader  of 
Massachusetts  Radicals,  81;  disgust 
with.  410 

Sun  considers  Grant  tower  of  strength, 
317;  favors  Chase,  326;  character- 
izes Blair  and  Seymour,  346;  edi- 
torial on  Dem.  State  con.,  369; 
makes  only  true  prediction.  372; 
admits  Grant's  election,  381;  de- 
nounces election  frauds,  401 ;  Grant 
will  pacify  country,  402;  editorial 
on  charter  election,  405 

Sutherland,  Citizens  Assoc,  takes  up 
charges  against,  198 

Sweeney.  James  M..  elector,  367 

Sweeny.  Peter  B  ,  becomes  prominent 
factor  in  Democracy.  26;  58;  108; 
179;  gives  city  $200,000,  201;  ap- 
pointed to  Erie  receivership,  279; 
made  Erie  director,  1:97;  360;  868; 
furnished  brains  for  Tweed  Ring, 
377,  note 

Sweet,  Sylvanus  H.,  of  Oneida,  53 


INDEX 


[444 


Swift,  John  L. ,  opinion  of  Pendleton's 
candidacy,  334 

Swinging  round  the  cirkle,  87;  cam- 
paign book  by  Petroleum  V.  Nasby, 
117,  note 

Syracuse,  home  of  Barnum  and  Slocum 
center  of  up-State  campaign,  69; 
center  of  Dem.  up-State  campaign, 
131 

Taber,  Congressman  (Dem.),  1st  dist., 
1866,  136 

Taggart,  Judge,  dissatisfaction  over 
overthrow,  202 

Talmie,  Collin,  323 

Tammany  Hall,  utilizes  foreign  ele- 
ment to  help  Democracy,  26;  gains 
over  Kegency  and  Mozart  Hall,  26; 
source  of  power  in  vile  conditions, 
35;  rewards  Mozart  Hall,  175;  pub- 
lic awakening  to  machinations  of, 
200;  John  Kelly  calls  for  loan,  200; 
Judge  Morris  attacks,  363;  press 
comments  on  frauds  of,  394;  nat- 
uralization committees  under  Gale 
and  Eosenberg,  398 

Tappan  and  Messrs.  Schoonmaker  and 
Champlain  present  minority  report, 
243-4 

Tarbox,  assemblyman,  caucus  teller, 
151 

Temperance,  State  convention  meets 
in  Albany,  171 

Ten  Broeck,  Cornelius,  candidate  for 
clerk  of  Court  of  Appeals,  361 

Ten  Eyck,  enlarges  State  com.,  362 

Tennessee,  accepts  amendments  and  is 
restored  to  Union,  82 

Terwilliger,  James,  167;  356 

Thayer,  C.  S.,  speaker  Dem.  rally, 
205 

Thayer,  Francis  S. ,  senate  committee 
to  investigate  legislative  corruption, 
298 

Thompson,  Henry,  director  Erie, 
fined,  297;  pays  Payne,  story  rela- 
tive to  Caldwell,  300;  301 

Thompson,  R.  W.,  chairman  com- 
mittee on  platform,  312 

Tilden  Henry  A.,  323 

Tilden,  Samuel  J.,  discredited,  48-9; 
90;  108;  179;  delegate  to  constitu- 
tional convention,  213;  casts  doubt 
on  legality  of  submission,  247; 
prominent     at    Dem.    convention; 


calls  to  order,  172;  calls  Dem.  Con- 
vention to  order,  322;  delegate  at 
large,  323;  accused  of  conspiracy, 
342;  360;  calls  1868  convention  to 
order,  361;  368;  keynote  for  Demo- 
crats, 372;  stands  by  ticket,  1868, 
382;  secret  circular  attributed  to; 
denies  knowledge  of  circular,  393; 
aspires  to  Seymour's  place  in  party, 
412 

Tilton,  Theodore,  Chase's  energetic 
friend,  326;  see  also  Independent, 
The 

Times,  The,  unable  to  appreciate 
Democratic  change  of  heart,  49; 
comment  on  Horace  Greeley,  92; 
prediction  of,  133  note;  loyal  ser- 
vant, 315;  devotes  strength  to  finan- 
cial rebuttal,  376;  final  arguments 
on  Griswold  and  Hoffman,  391;  de- 
nounces election  frauds.  401 

Times  (Chicago  >,  questions  life  of 
Democracy,  144 

Times  (Troy)  defends  Griswold,  375 

Titus,  Charles  MM  elector,  355 

Topliff,  E.  C.,188 

Torrance,  C.  C. ,  proposes  A.  P.  Lan- 
ning,  363 

Toucey,  Sinclair,  353 

Townsend,  John  D.,  relations  between 
the  Erie  and  Tweed,  292 

Townsend,  Martin  I. ,  discusses  consti- 
tution, 257;  speech  of  1868,  379 

Townsend,  Solomon,  245,  note 

Travis,  nominates  Greeley,  151 

Tremaine,  Lyman,  permanent  presi- 
dent Syracuse  (Rep.)  convention, 
92;  life,  146-7;  comment  on  Conk- 
ling's  election,  152-3;  speaks  at 
Rep.  convention,  306  ;  delegate  at 
large,  306;  reports  resolutions,  308; 
candidate  for  Gov.,  351 

Tribune,  The.  hurls  charges  at  Gen. 
Slocum,  67;  opinion  of  Conkling, 
155 ;  engages  in  war  with  all  conser- 
vative journals,  195;  blames  N.  Y., 
Rep.  papers,  209;  harms  work  of 
convention,  259;  attacks  Hoffman 
for  connection  with  Tweed,  377; 
denounces  election  frauds,  401 ;  see 
also  Greeley,  Horace 

Tucker,  Gideon  T.,  surrogate,  103; 
elected  surrogate,  135 

Tweed,  William  Marcy,  becomes 
prominent  factor  in  Dem.  party,  26; 


445J 


INDEX 


445 


116;  candidate  on  Union  Rep.  and 
Tammany  tickets,  197;  279;  senator, 
on  Vanderbilt  side.  286;  extending 
power    in    legislature,    292;    made 
Erie  director,  297;  323;  324;  vice- 
pres.  Dem.  con.,  336;    leads  Tam-  j 
many  forces,  360;  leads  cheers  for  j 
Hoffman,  363;  gross  frauds  of,  393;  j 
399;  would  not  be  tolerated  to-day, 
412 

Union  league  Club,  charges  fraud, 
394 

Unionists,  factions  among,  24;  origin 
of,  25;  gain  control  of  State  in  1863, 
26;  evidence  of  dissensions  among, 
26;  Greeley-Weed  feud  flourishing 
in  1865,  27;  N.  Y.  State  ticket  for 

1864,  44;    N.  Y    State  ticket  for 

1865,  53;  convention  opens  in  Syra- 
cuse, Sept.  20, 1865, 56;  convention 
of  1865,  Radical  journals  comment, 
56;  delegates  led  by  Ellis  H.  Rob- 
erts. 57;  Radicals  claim  majority 
by  70  to  50,  58;  Conservatives  as- 
sert control,  59;  controlled  by 
Henry  J.  Raymond  and  Thurlow 
Weed,  59;  Preston  King  and  Wil- 
liam H.  Seward  represent  factions 
contending  for  Johnson's  favor,  60; 
Radicals  affirm  right  of  loyal  South- 
erners to  vote  in  reorganization  of 
State  governments,  61;  platform, 
63-4;  editorial  comments,  64;  strong 
majority,  77;  national  convention 
of  1866  opens  at  Philadelphia,  Aug. 
14,  82;  preliminary  convention  held 
at  Saratoga,  90;  Homer  Nelson, 
temporary  chairman,  90;  elect  eight 
delegates-at-large  to  Philadelphia 
convention,  90 ;  State  convention 
of  1867  meets  at  Syracuse,  Sept.  25, 
159;  editorial  comments,  162;  na- 
tional convention  of  1866.  see  also 
Philadelphia  convention  ;  Repub- 
lican 

Universe,  The,  comments  on  Johnson's 
Fenian  attitude,  122 

Vallandigham,  Clement  L.,  asked  to 
withdraw   from   Philadelphia    con- 
vention, 83;  343 
Van  Anden,  Isaac,  elector,  367 
Van  Arnam,  Cong.    Rad.   31st    dist. 

1866,  137 


Van  Brunt.  George  B.,  elected,  208 
Van  Buren,  John,  nominated  attorney- 
general,  49;  of  New  York,  53;  at- 
tacks Seymour  and  Vallandigham, 
67;  Greeley  comments  on  attack, 
67;  great  efforts  in  campaign,  as- 
sisted by  Montgomery  Blair  and 
Gen.  John  Cochrane,  69;  dies  Oct. 
14,  1866;  loss  to  party,  131 
Van  Buren,  Thomas  B.,  and  Andrews 

reply  to  Spencer,  305 
Van  Campen,  George,  245,  note 
Van  Cott,  Joshua  M.,  nominated  for 
attorney-general,  166;  defeated,  208; 
delegate  to  constitutional  conven- 
tion, 213;  member  judiciary  com- 
mittee, 215;  amendment  presented 
by,  242;  origin  of  convention's 
powers,  247;  temporal- v  chairman, 
303;  307-8 
Vanderbilt,  Cornelius,  career  of;  com- 
parison with  Drew.  268;  buys 
heavily,  274;  unsuspectingly  pur- 
chases Erie  bonds.  277;  prevents 
panic,  278;  influence  at  Albany 
waned,  292;  withdraws,  293;  plans 
settlement  with  Drew,  294;  wishes 
as  to  settlement,  295;  terms  of  set- 
tlement, 296;  War  Dem.,  Cooper 
Union,  1868,  383 
Vanderbilt.    Cornelius,    Jr.,    witness 

Hale  committee,  299 
Vanderpoel,      Aaron,      War     Dem., 

Cooper  Union,  1868,  383 
Van    Horn,   Cong.  Rad.    29th    dist., 

1866,  137 
Van  Schaack.  David,  elector.  367 
Van  Valkenburg    D.  A..  Rep,  State 

com.,  1868,  356 
Van  Vorst.  H.  C  elector,  355 
Van  Wyck.  Charles  H.,  59;   tempo- 
rary   chairman    Syracuse     (Rep.) 
convention,    92;    136;    159;     pres. 
Rep.  convention;  censures  Johnson, 
306;  candidate  for  Gov. ;  declines  to 
run,  352 
Vance,  Z.  B.,  Blair  in  class  with,  380 
Vermont,  elects  Rep.  ticket,  132 
Verplanck.    on   unrestricted  suffrage, 

258 
Voorhees,    of    Indiana,    speaker    at 

Dem.  rally,  205 
Voorhies,  substituted  for  Jacobs,  321 , 
note 


446 


INDEX 


[446 


Wade,  Benjamin,  named  for  vice- 
pres.,  810;  312 ;  third  for  vice- 
pres.,313;  radical,  380 

Wadsworth,  James  S. ,  nominated  for 
Gov.,  1862,  as  Greeley  candidate,  24 

Wagstaff,  Alfred,  Rep.  del.  1st  dist., 
1868,  307 

Wait,  A.  D.,  Rep.  State  con.  15th 
dist.,  1868,  356 

Waite,  D.  H.,  severs  connection  with 
Chautauqua  Democrat,  203 

Wakeman,  const,  con  v.,  opposed  to 
increase  in  judges,  217;  motion  for 
re-election  of  judges  carries,  223 

Waldo,  A.  B.,  Dem.  State  con.  4th 
dist.,  107 

Waldo,  Christopher  A.,  Dem.  State 
con.  6th  dist.,  53 

Wales,  Gideon,  proposes  suffrage  for 
taxpaying  women,  236,  note 

Walker,  Charles  C.  B.,  Dem.  State 
con.  7th  dist,  1865,  53;  107;  Dem. 
State  con.,  1867,  179;  1868,  368 

Walrath,  C.  H.,  Dem.  State  con.  6th 
dist.,  1866,  107 

Ward,  Cong.  27th  dist.  Dem.,  137 

Ward,  Eugene,  Republican  alderman, 
143 

Ward,  Gov.,  calls  Raymond  political 
apostate,  85 

Warren,  Joseph, del.  30th  Cong,  dist., 
1868,  324;  Dem.  State  con.,  mem- 
ber-at-large,  368 

Warren,  Moses,  del.  15th  Cong,  dist., 
1868,  323 

Webb,  W.  H.,  War  Dem.,  Cooper 
Union,  1868,  383 

Weed,  Smith  M.,  favor  adjournment, 
247;  aspires  to  lieut. -governorship, 
361 

Weed,  Thurlow,  rise  of  feud  with 
Horace  Greeley,  24;  power  broken 
by  rise  of  Fenton  and  Radical  fac- 
tion, 27;  urges  Unionists  to  drop 
former  Democrats,  58;  prevents  test 
vote,  59;  praises  resolutions  of 
Unionist  convention,  64;  suspected 
by  Democrats;  attitude  of  Daily 
Courier  and  Union,  130;  head  of 
Twenty-third  Street  party,  160;  as- 
sails Greeley  in  Commercial  Adver- 
tiser, 163;  endorses  Grant  and  Col- 
fax, 317;  favorite  diversion  of,  327; 
federal  patronage,  378;  severe  on 
Blair,  380;  finds  campaign  apathetic, 


402;  407;  remained  true  to  Phila- 
delphia principle  in  1866,  409; 
power  lost,  412;  see  also  Commercial 
Advertiser  and  Albany  Evening 
Journal 

Weidrick,  M.,  elector,  355 

Welles,  Gideon,  Sec.  of  Navy;  throws 
side-light  on  Seymour,  342;  state- 
ment as  to  payments  on  Monitor, 
375 

Wells,  David  A.,  compiles  campaign 
book,  373 

West,  Dewitt  C,  elector,  367 

Westervelt,  Jacob  A.,  War  Dem., 
Cooper  Union,  1868,  383 

Wheaton,  Charles,  del.  12th  Cong, 
dist. ,  1868,  323 

Wheeler,  Elisha  P.,  elector,  355 

Wheeler,  William  A.,  suggested  for 
lieutenant-governor,  93;  delegate 
to  constitutional  convention,  213; 
pres.  of  const,  conv. ,  214 

Whiskey  frauds,  revenue  officials  dis- 
cover, 194;  Herald,  Evening  Post, 
and  World  give  especial  attention 
to,  194-5;  Nation  points  out  loss 
and  waste,  195 

White,  Andrew  D.,  member  of  senate 
committee  to  investigate  New  York 
City  conditions,  34;  seconds  Conk- 
ling's  nomination,  148;  151,  note; 
reason  for  advocating  Conkling,  154; 
159;  comments  on  Seward's  speech, 
1868,  390;  frauds  well  known  to, 
394 

White,  William  B.,  Republican  alder- 
man, 143 

White  House  Speech,  Johnson  dis- 
graces himself,  81 

Wickham,  William,  delegate  to  con- 
stitutional convention,  213 

Wicks,  John  J.,  canal  commissioner, 
137 

Wildee,  O.  C,  Rep.  Nat.  delegate, 
1868,  307 

Williams,  Dr.  Julian  T.,  political 
doctor  for  Gould,  285 

Williams,  Stephen  K.  (Senator),  of 
Cayuga,  Times  accuses,  188;  Citi- 
zens' Assoc,  takes  up  charges 
against,  198 

Williams,  William,  Dem.  Nat.  dele- 
gate, 1868,  324 

Williamson,  Amos  J.,  Rep.  State 
com.,  93 


447] 


INDEX 


447 


Willson,  Hugh  B.,  charges  W.  J. 
Humphrey  with  corruption,  197 

Wilson,  Benjamin,  Bep.  State  com., 
1868,  356 

Wilson,  Henry,  named  for  vice-pres. , 
310;  317 

Wing,  Halsey  R.,  Dem.  Nat.  delegate, 
1868,  323 

Winslow,  John  S.,  Rep.  State  com., 
1866,  93 

Winslow,  John  F.,  Griswold's  partner, 
374 

Winslow,  Morris,  elector,  355 

Wise,  Henry  A.,  Blair  classed  with, 
380 

Woman  Suffrage,  central  committee 
presents  resolution  to  N.  Y.  con., 
337,  note;  see  also  suffrage 

Wood,  Congressman  (Dem. ),  9th  dist., 
1866,  136 

Wood,  Fernando,  25;  influence  dimin- 
ished, 26;  asked  to  withdraw  from 
Philadelphia  convention,  83;  money 
spent  to  elect,  305 

Woodford,  Stewart  L.,  of  Kings,  92; 
nomination  of,  93 ;  132 ;  elected 
lieut-gov.,  133:  speaks  at  Rep.  con- 
vention, 306;  candidate  for  Gov., 
352;  nominated  for  Gov.,  354 

Work,  Frank,  director  on  board  Erie 
R.  R.,  271;  petitions  for  injunction, 
272;  director  of  Erie,  274;  interest 
in  Erie  settlement,  295;  share  in 
settlement.  296 

Workingmen's  convention,  delegates 
given  seats  in  Dem.  Nat.  con.,  336 


Worth,  Jacob,  elector,  355 

World,  The  comments  on  change  of 
Democratic  ideas,  49;  considers 
Dem.  ticket  not  strong,  but  liberal, 
53;  resents  charge  against  Slocum, 
67;  prophesies  future  victory  in  face 
of  defeat,  77;  predicts  loss  of  Conser- 
vative vote,  97;  gives  lie  to  Rep. 
organs,  116;  consoles  Democrats, 
137;  considers  Connolly  honest  and 
economical,  143 ;  assails  Conk- 
ling,  155;  summarizes  candidates, 
note,  180;  reviews  canal  frauds 
under  Rep.,  206;  warns  Democrats, 
211;  on  the  Chicago  convention, 
316;  attack  on  Grant,  374;  attacks 
Griswold,  374;  seconds  Hoffman, 
376;  on  Grant  and  Blair,  380;  de- 
mands change  in  ticket,  381 ;  fails  to 
mention  election  frauds,  401 ;  praises 
Seymour,  403 

Worth,  Samuel,  cand.  for  nomination 
to  State  treasurer,  1867,  179 

Wright,  William  W.,  nominated  for 
canal  commissioner,  107 

Wyckofi;  Samuel  S.,  elector,  355 

Young,  Campbell  II.,  named  for  clerk 
Court  of  Appeals,  355;  vote  for 
clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  1868, 
392 

Young,  John  Russell,  represents 
Greeley  at  Syracuse,  351 

Young,  Solomon  C,  discussion  of 
district  plan,  239 

Younglove,  Truman  G.,  307;  352 


VITA 

The  author  of  this  monograph  was  born  May  6,  1884, 
at  Syracuse,  New  York.  After  receiving  his  preparatory 
education  in  the  public  schools  of  that  city  he  entered  Syra- 
cuse University,  from  which  he  graduated  in  1906  with 
the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Philosophy.  The  next  two  years 
were  spent  at  Syracuse  following  courses  in  History  and 
courses  in  Civil  Law,  for  which  he  received  the  degrees  of 
Master  of  Philosophy,  in  1907,  and  Bachelor  of  Laws,  in 
1908.  He  was  admitted  to  the  New  York  State  Bar  in 
July,  1908.  From  the  fall  of  1908  until  the  present  he  has 
been  in  residence  at  Columbia  University  as  a  candidate 
for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy.  At  Syracuse 
University  the  author  attended  courses  given  by  Professors 
William  H.  Mace  and  Alexander  C.  Flick;  and  at  Colum- 
bia University  courses  given  by  Professors  John  W.  Bur- 
gess, William  A.  Dunning,  Herbert  L.  Osgood,  William  R. 
Shepherd  and  John  Bassett  Moore.  The  author  was  an 
Assistant  in  the  Department  of  History,  Syracuse  Univer- 
sity, for  one  year,  and  has,  also,  taught  History  in  the  Pros- 
pect Heights  School  for  Boys,  Brooklyn,  -1910-11;  in  the 
Twenty-third  Street  Y.  M.  C.  A.  Night  School,  191 1 -13; 
and  for  the  same  period  in  the  College  of  the  City  of  New 
York. 
448 


GENERAL  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA— BERKELEY 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or  on  the 

date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

iSJul>54l/lC 

RECD  Lt|  DEC  15  '69  -2PM 

JL    2  195 Alt 

ftECD  L 

D                         J 

u^mbw 

MAR    5i33 

MR25V37051 

- 

7ADr'6c*j ' 

iPR    2,970 

RECD  LD 

MAS  1 9  1QS7 

RECD  LD 

Ami  ww 

J 

RECD  LD 

JAN    4'65-2PM 

LD  21-100m-l,'54(1887sl6 

)476 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


;   i 


